Contradictory Symbols in American Revolutionary Newspaper Nameplates

Home , Benjamin Edes, Boston Gazette, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Peter Timothy

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2009-03-10

Royal Images and Rebel Ideals: Contradictory Symbols in American Revolutionary Newspaper Nameplates

Autumn Lorimer Linford Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Communication Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Linford, Autumn Lorimer, "Royal Images and Rebel Ideals: Contradictory Symbols in American Revolutionary Newspaper Nameplates" (2009). Theses and Dissertations. 1769. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/1769

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Royal Images and Rebel Ideals:

Contradictory Symbols in American Revolutionary

Newspaper Nameplates

Autumn Lorimer Linford

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Communications

Brigham Young University

April 2009

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by

Autumn Lorimer Linford

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.

Date Kevin Stoker, Chair

Date Edward Adams

Date Dale Cressman

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Autumn Lorimer Linford in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library.

Date Kevin Stoker Chair, Graduate Committee

Accepted for the Department

Date Kevin Stoker

Accepted for the College

Date Rory Scanlon, Associate Dean

ABSTRACT

ROYAL IMAGES AND REVOLUTIONARY IDEALS: CONTRADICTORY SYMBOLS IN AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY NEWSPAPER NAMEPLATES

Autumn Lorimer Linford

Department of Communications

Master of Arts

Historians have long claimed that the newspaper printers of the American

Revolution were instrumental in bringing about Independence. By focusing solely on the

written words left behind by these men, however, researchers have erroneously believed the printers belonged exclusively to either the patriot or Tory camps. The masthead

symbols chosen by the printers to represent their newspapers offer a more objective

measure of their partisan affiliations than a textual analysis of the content. The printers

marked major changes in their political ideologies by inserting and deleting political

symbols in their newspaper mastheads. This study examines the use and meanings of

these engravings, arguing that the symbols best represent the personal views of the

printers. The study of masthead designs will help historians better understand Colonial

printers and their progress toward their ultimate political affiliation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For Mom, Dad, and my committee, who were always willing to go with me on my trips to the 18th century,

and especially for my husband Wayne,

who patiently waited for me to come home each night to the 21st.

CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2. Literature Review ...... 7

Chapter 3. Early Patriot Newspapers ...... 40

Chapter 4. Newspapers that Began Loyal ...... 92

Chapter 5. Initially Unbiased Newspapers...... 110

Chapter 6. Conclusion ...... 156

Appendixes ...... 161

Endnotes ...... 164

vii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

1. “Britannia liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 27 Journal

2. “Minerva liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 28 Journal

3. “JOIN, or DIE,” Pennsylvania Gazette 29

4. New-York Journal, or General Advertiser nameplate, 1774 30

5. George III Royal Coat of Arms 31

6. “King’s arms,” South Carolina Gazette nameplate 31

7. “King’s arms,” Pennsylvania Chronicle nameplate 32

8. “Britannia liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 41 Journal, April 1755

9. “Britannia liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 42 Journal, August 1758

10. “Heart and Crown,” Connecticut Courant nameplate 44

11. “Britannia liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 65 Journal, January 1766

12. “Minerva liberating a bird” Boston Gazette and Country 65 Journal, January 1770

13. New-York Journal, or General Advertiser nameplate, 1774 136

14. “United snake,” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser 145

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction

During the American Revolution, well-known Tory newspaperman James

Rivington was mercilessly mocked, vindictively scorned, and regularly threatened for his

open support of the British Crown. His New York newspaper was called a “scurrilous

Sheet” and banned by at least one provincial congress. The printer was at one point hung in effigy, thrown out of his own printing house, had his printing press destroyed by an angry mob, was set upon by armed men on horseback, run out of town, and had his metal type carried away and melted into bullets. In particular, Colonial Patriots sneered at

Rivington for his addition of the king’s coat of arms into the center of his newspaper’s nameplate. The poet Phillip Freneau jeered at the long-persecuted printer for the

engraving in a poem entitled, “On Mr. Rivington’s new engraved King’s Arms to his

Royal Gazette”:

“From the regions of night with his head in a sack, Ascended a person accoutred in black, And upwards directing his circular eye whites Like the Jure-divino political Levites, And leaning his elbow on Rivington’s shelf While the printer was busy, thus mus’d with himself— “My mandates are fully comply’d with at last, New Arms are engraved, and new letters are cast; I therefore determine, and freely accord, This servant of mine shall receive his reward.” Then turning about, to the printer he said, “Who late was my servant shall now be my aid; Since under my banners so bravely you fight, Kneel down! For your merits I dub you a Knight: From a passive subaltern I bid you to rise The Inventor, as well as the PRINTER, of Lies.”1

Rivington was not alone, however, in printing the king’s arms in his newspaper’s

nameplate. Nor was the practice restricted exclusively to Tory printers. In fact, many newspapers included engravings of British symbols before the American Revolution

began, including some of the most outspoken Patriot papers.

The important role played by printers before the American Revolution in

convincing the Colonials of Britain’s wrongs is well documented. Tory and Patriot

printers often engaged in the many heated arguments proceeding independence, reprinting essays by noted revolutionaries or ardent Loyalists and occasionally interjecting their own vicious written parleys. And yet, many Patriot printers still chose to

print each edition with an undeniably British symbol at the top of every front page – a heart surrounded by a crown, Britannia embodied by a young woman liberating a bird representing America, the symbolic Britannia and America shaking hands, even the king’s own royal coat of arms. In contrast, many Tory newspapers did not include pro-

British symbols during the first few years of publication. Some, like Rivington’s New

York Gazetteer, used impartial symbols until 1774 or 1775, when the printers were forced to choose a side. A few Tory papers even began with American symbols, such as their province’s coat of arms.

Scholars have largely overlooked the symbols used in Colonial newspaper

nameplates, even though art historians and iconologists have long asserted the importance

Colonials gave to symbols in general. Symbols were used extensively during the

eighteenth century throughout America in the art hung in fashionable homes, on business

signs, and even on government buildings. The importance given to symbolic

representations by early Americans is attested to by a brief anecdote: On July 4, 1776, the

very day independence was declared from Great Britain, the Continental Congress

assigned a committee to design a seal for the still profoundly-green American

government. Their eagerness to establish an emblem for the country confirms the

people’s desire for a symbol or banner to rally around.2

The symbols printers chose to use in their newspaper nameplates in many ways

functioned as the printer’s personal banner. It allowed these men to visually communicate

their loyalties and values to their readers. As such, the nameplates of Colonial

newspapers are an important part of any study attempting to understand the motivations

and feelings of these men.

Nameplate symbols become an even more valuable clue to understanding

Colonial printers when it is noted that, most often, these engravings were the only

significant item included in a newspaper that was specifically chosen by the printer

himself. Most content was either written by readers or plagiarized from other English or

American newspapers and merely published verbatim by the printers. Rarely did Colonial

printers enter into the political fray with their own published words. Instead, they

commonly allowed others to articulate arguments while they simply published the

discussion. The nameplate engravings, however, were selected, and in some cases

created, by the printer alone. Printers chose which symbol would carry the top of their

front pages each week, and it is significant that the emblems they used were often

politically charged. In the years leading up to independence, these political engravings

appeared and disappeared in the nameplates of Colonial newspapers as the printers dedicated themselves to one side or the other. An understanding of these symbols,

therefore, is important to the study of these men. These symbols may tell us more about the political standings of Colonial printers than an analysis of content alone.

This research will examine what the insertion, deletion, or continued inclusion of political symbols in Colonial newspaper nameplates said about the loyalties of individual

printers before the American Revolution. Newspapers were chosen for this study with the

help of Isaiah Thomas’s The History of Printing in America, which takes an encyclopedic

approach to categorizing Colonial printers. Thomas, a Colonial printer himself, was one

of the first to preserve and describe early American newspapers. As The History of

Printing is still considered by many as the standard work on Colonial printing and

printers, it was consulted when choosing the newspapers included in this study.

Based on Thomas’s description of each publication and printer, newspapers were selected using the following criteria: each paper was located in one the largest cities of the day, enjoyed a large circulation, was political in content, and used a nameplate symbol that differed from the political position Thomas ascribed to them. Availability was also considered when choosing Colonial newspapers for this study. Broken down in this way, nine newspapers emerge – four that originally leaned toward the Patriot cause, two that supported the Loyalists, and three that initially attempted to objectively cover all political conflicts. The four initially pro-Patriot newspapers are:

• The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal • The Newport Mercury • The South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal • The Connecticut Courant

The two initially pro-Loyalist newspapers are:

• The South Carolina Gazette • The Pennsylvania Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser

The three initially neutral newspapers are:

• Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, or, The Connecticut, New-Jersey, Hudson’s- River, and Quebec Weekly Advertiser • The New-York Mercury • The New-York Journal, or, General Advertiser

Other pre-Revolutionary newspapers described by Thomas contained political symbols in their nameplates, such as The Boston Evening-Post, the New York Gazette, and the Essex Gazette, but were excluded from this study for three primary reasons. First, some of these publications were discontinued before 1765, and were therefore not involved in the upheaval prior to the Revolutionary War. Second, Thomas occasionally did not give any information as to a newspaper’s political cast, or described them, as he did one paper, as “not remarkable in its political features.” Third, some of these newspapers were printed in smaller cities, and therefore had smaller circulations and less impact. A few newspapers that met the previous criteria, such as the Boston Chronicle and the Pennsylvania Evening Post, were also excluded, since Thomas does not describe them as using any engraving in their nameplates.3

The nine newspapers included in this study were closely examined for the

addition or subtraction of political symbols. The content included in the editions

surrounding these changes were scrutinized for any events that might have influenced a

printer to modify his nameplate. Primary research was also done in the American

Antiquarian Society and Massachusetts Historical Society to examine diaries and

personal correspondence of printers as well as what other documents their presses

published for clues as to why these men decided to insert or delete the political symbols

in their nameplates.

The second chapter of this thesis will provide a comprehensive background on the press and printers of Colonial America. It will also discuss the engravings used in the newspapers’ nameplates, their meanings, uses, and history. The third chapter will deal primarily with the newspapermen who began as Patriot printers, and the nameplate symbols they chose to employ. The fourth chapter will discuss the engravings of those who entered the conflict as Tory printers. The fifth chapter will discuss the printers and newspapers that began as neutral, but ended on one side or the other. The final chapter will include a discussion of these findings and their possible implications, as well as briefly examine the limitations of this research and suggest what further work remains to be done.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Much research has been done on the content of Colonial newspapers and the

critical role they played in the development of the United States. The nine newspapers

and printers discussed in this thesis are often mentioned in communications history

textbooks and other scholarly writings about the time period. Despite this, most previous

research has not delved deeply into the lives of the printers or the stories of their

newspapers. Instead, most historians have taken a broad approach, simply retelling a brief

anecdote of one of the printer’s more dramatic exploits or quoting a memorable passage

from the newspapers, then moving on.

Historian Frank Mott told the story of Rhode Island printer Solomon Southwick

of the Newport Mercury, who buried his press and types rather than allow them to be captured by the British troops when their army invaded his city. Printer Peter Timothy of the South Carolina Gazette is immortalized as the “strongest exponent of Patriot doctrine in the South” and for his death as an American prisoner of war. William Goddard of the

Pennsylvania Chronicle is labeled a “maverick.” Eric Burns described the feats of printers Benjamin Franklin, John Campbell, James Franklin, John Peter Zenger, and

William Bradford III.1

Arguably the most celebrated and most frequently discussed Patriot paper is the

Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, the “pet of Patriots.” It seems only natural that this

paper should be at the forefront in scholarly literature, since it was unquestionably at the

forefront of the Patriot movement before the Revolution. Francis Bernard, Governor of

Massachusetts in the early years of unrest in Boston, has often been quoted in calling

Boston a “hotbed of sedition,” the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal “an infamous

weekly paper which has swarmed with libels of the most atrocious kind,” and the

Gazette’s editors Benjamin Edes and John Gill “trumpeters of sedition.” Historian Peter

C. Marzio calls this press the “firebrand of colonial newspapers.” Edes and Gill are described as the leaders of “upstart printers anxious to challenge the Crown” by author

Fred Blevens. Other historians have called the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal

“radical” and one of the most “influential and widely read [newspapers] in the colonies.”

In fact, the paper was so revolutionary, the British government placed its printers on a list

of enemies to be captured, “and if possible, laid waste.”2

Often Edes and Gill are quoted by authors when a dramatic and startling effect is desired, which the printers never fail to deliver. The printing duo dubbed Governor

Thomas Gage a “profane, wicked-monster of falsehood and perfidy,” and a “robber, a murderer, a traitor, and a tyrant.” They were the first to suggest that the “political union between Great Britain and the colonies [was] dissolved” in 1768. The press is “the Terror of Traytors and Oppressors, and a Barrier against them.” Historians Philip Davidson and

Arthur Schlesinger wrote about the Gazette’s printers as bold purveyors of propaganda and liberty. Clarence S. Brigham detailed Edes and Gill’s friendship and business relationship with the engraver Paul Revere, who later designed the Boston Gazette, and

Country Journal’s pro-American nameplate. Nationalist historian Isaiah Thomas, who published his own Colonial newspaper only a few blocks from Edes and Gill’s print shop, wrote of the Gazette, “no paper on the continent took a more active part in defence of the

country, or more ably supported its rights…its patrons were alert and ever at their posts,

and they had a primary agency in events which led to our national independence.”3

Another Patriot printer often mentioned by historians is John Holt, who published

the New York Journal. Holt is generally described as a “zealous advocate for the

American cause,” as Thomas put it in 1810. Most historians agreed that Holt originally

dedicated his newspaper to impartiality, and some historical writings suggest the printer

avoided all blatant propaganda when reporting such hot topics as the Boston Massacre.4

Eventually, Holt began excluding any Tory views from his newspaper, however.

Historians disagree on how quickly this change took place, but all have listed him as one

of the leading Patriot printers by the time the Revolution began. According to Wm. David

Sloan, a leading communications historian, Holt rationalized selecting only Patriot news

by arguing that in order to print both sides, he would have to give space to Loyalist

views, which were contrary to the cause of liberty. Holt is often quoted as writing, “My

paper is sacred to the cause of truth and justice, and I have preferred the pieces, that in

my opinion, are the most necessary to the support of the cause, [rather than propagate]

barefaced attempts to deceive and impose upon the ignorant.”5

The most extensive study of the Pennsylvania Chronicle comes from its printer himself: William Goddard. Frustrated after struggling for years with Tory business partners, the Patriot printer published “The Partnership: or the History of the Rise and

Progress of the Pennsylvania Chronicle” in 1770. Goddard detailed the newspaper’s beginning, outward success, and inward troubles. The partnership between Tory and

Patriot did not work well. Goddard and his partners were constantly at loggerheads over

newspaper content. The result was both a strongly Patriot and a strongly Tory

newspaper.6

Most historians have overlooked this vacillating content and placed Goddard

squarely in the Patriot camp. Davidson listed him with Edes, Thomas, Holt, and Bradford

as one of the few printers who consciously turned their newspapers into propaganda

machines for the American cause. Schlesinger portrays the printer as an adventurer and

Patriot. Thomas described him as a “laborious agent in the cause of his country.”7

Peter Timothy of the South Carolina Gazette is unquestionably described in scholarly literature as soundly Patriot. Despite the newspaper’s own promise to not be

“Tory, nor Whig,” Davidson called the South Carolina Gazette, “the best Whig paper in the southern colonies.” Thomas added that the newspaper “energetically opposed the measures of the British administration.” Jeffery A. Smith claimed that the newspaper

“avoided blandness” by remaining impartial throughout most of its history, but Smith also claimed that Timothy “published the most radical attacks on Britain and made his own Patriot sentiments known.”8

A few scholars have focused their studies specifically on the Connecticut Courant.

E. Wilder Spaulding claimed that the Connecticut Courant was representative of all

eighteenth century American newspapers. He described the newspaper as “thoroughly

disloyal…even in 1764 before the passage of the Stamp Act.” Spaulding described the

many exploits of the Connecticut Courant, from its open support of the Sons of Liberty in

its first edition to its commitment to non-importation in 1775. Spaulding is also one of the

few who has noted the deletion of the pro-British symbols from a newspaper nameplate

and connected it with the political beliefs of the printers. He mentioned briefly that, “The

weekly appearance of the lion and the unicorn crest was the [Courant’s] sole claim to

loyalty until January 29, 1776, when the disappearance of the crest indicated that

Ebenezer Watson was ready for the Declaration of Independence.”9

Historians have made Rivington into something of a poster-boy for Tory printers.

His newspaper, Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, is nearly always discussed when

Loyalist presses are mentioned. Emery described him as the “Tory spokesman.”

Rivington was educated and talented, and his newspaper quickly earned one of the largest lists of subscribers in all the Colonies. Most scholars give Rivington credit for attempting to keep his press “Ever open and uninfluenced” at first. Once this is acknowledged, historians make a quick jump in time to when Rivington became the most famous and most hated of all Tory printers.10

Rivington’s sharp wit and knack for satire made him a detested enemy of the

Patriots. He gleefully mocked several leading Patriot printers from New York and

Boston. He eloquently pointed out the many flaws in the logic of Rebel leaders. He

became such a threat that the Sons of Liberty tried several times to silence the printer.

Whole towns joined together to condemn him and his newspaper. This bitter hatred appears to have simply amused the printer. When an angry, threatening mob hung

Rivington in effigy in attempt to intimidate him, the printer fired back with an ironic engraving of the event in his next newspaper. In the engraving, he dressed himself as a gentleman and taunted the Patriots by writing that “some of the lower class of inhabitants” had done this after he had merely acted “consistent with his profession as a free printer.”11

Only slightly less researched is Tory printer Hugh Gaine and his publication, the

New-York Mercury. Most have branded him the “turncoat” of the Revolution after he switched from supporting the Patriots to backing the Tory cause in 1777. Historians have claimed, “his business creed emphasized nonpartisanship; and though he was forced to a certain adherence to the Patriot side by threats and organized pressures, he was certainly never a strong Patriot in principle.” Evensen wrote that Gaine switched from being a

Patriot printer to a Loyalist several times in order to avoid persecution. Botein claimed the printer had stamped himself a Tory as early as 1774.12

Lorenz, arguably the expert on Gaine, treated the printer with more compassion than most. Rather than assume Gaine’s decision to change his newspaper from Patriot to

Tory came simply from a cowardly disposition, Lorenz dug deep into Gaine’s life and discovered the many influencing factors weighing on his choices. Despite this in-depth look at the printer’s life, most historians still dwell on Gaine’s final backing of the Tory cause, marking him a traitor and a coward.13

Whether Tory or Patriot, the life of a printer was not an easy one. All Colonial printers faced many hardships, great and small. Occasionally, the occupation was downright dangerous. Rivington was hardly the only newspaperman to face the wrath of an angry mob. Most Colonial printers were at one point threatened by either the

American Sons of Liberty or British soldiers. Many more were hung in effigy after printing contrary essays. A few had their homes demolished and families threatened. At one point, Holt reported that a letter was thrown into his printing shop threatening in no uncertain terms his life and possessions if he bowed to the British government.14

Printers also faced smaller concerns. Bad weather often held up the mail, leaving

the printers with nothing worth printing. Many printers had faced backlash from offended

readers after publishing religious or political material. Governmental censorship caused

problems for printers decades before the Stamp Act.15

Printing was not always a profitable business during the early eighteenth century.

Most newspapers failed. Equipment was expensive, and subscribers rarely paid. Often,

printers and their workers went hungry. Occasionally, printers became so desperate they

would accept food or clothing in lieu of cash payments. Most took on other printing

orders, such as books, essays, almanacs, religious works, hymns, pamphlets, broadsides,

and governmental documents to help pay the bills.16

Paper was scarce, especially after trouble with England broke out. Most paper

came from Britain, and even before the conflict began, printers struggled to obtain

enough paper in one shipment to print an entire order of books. Later, paper became one

of the items often taxed by the English government and was therefore boycotted by

radical groups in the colonies.17

Type wore down quickly from the manual pressing of pages but was expensive to

replace. In fact, type was so valuable, that when Ebenezer Watson of the Connecticut

Courant died in 1777, his type made up nearly half of the total value of his holdings,

including a printing press and his shop itself. Until 1775, printers had to ship away to

England for new type. The prospect was expensive and took time.18

The work involved in printing was difficult and labor-intensive. Each letter was painstakingly placed by hand backwards on an imposing stone using a composing stick, then transferred to the “bed” between the tracks of the heavy-built frame of the wooden

press. It was then “locked up,” or wedged within the sturdy frame of a chase. The type

was then inked, a difficult task done by dabbing a leather ball covered in fresh ink over

the type. Then, individual pieces of paper were placed on the oblong block, or platen, and

an impression of the inked type was made using the basic principle of the wine screw-

press. Journeymen, paid workers, would pull down on a bar attached to the screw, which

would in turn put a heavy downward pressure, squeezing the paper and type together. If

the process had been completed successfully, a satisfactory impression was made and the

work began again. Most newspapers of the time were roughly 10 by 15 inches with only

four pages.19

The addition of an engraving like those found in nameplates only added to the

workload. Images often would blur, creating the need for another imprint to be made.

Benjamin Franklin was said to be the first to attempt the process regularly in America. He brought “spice and interest to his pages by the introduction of small woodcut illustrations” to advertisements in the newspaper. Usually, these small engravings were used to announce a ship sailing, stagecoach and canal boat schedules, or to offer rewards

for runaway slaves.20

The process of making and engraving imprint could be done in one of several

ways. The first most crude and most common method was that of a wood cut. Portions of

the image, which the artist wanted to remain white, were carved away from a wooden

block. Those sections to be printed black were left raised on the block. The design was

then inked and pressed, leaving an inverse image of the block on the paper. Later,

Thomas Bewick improved this technique. Bewick was one of the first to use what is

known as the “white line” technique, which entailed incising the lines of the design into

the face of a block, so that the lines showed white against a black background. Small cuts

of crowns, harps, hourglasses, skulls and crossbones, and a wide variety of fleurons, or

flower designs ordered from England and Scotland foundries were by this method

inserted into many advertisements in the newspapers of the day.21

The best imprints were made from line engravings cut into copper, a technique

known as “intaglio” engraving. The image was cut, then inserted as a block onto the bed

of the printing press along with the rest of the type that made up the newspaper. The type

and engraving were then inked and squeezed against a wet piece of paper by the printing

press. The weight of the printing press forced the paper into the grooves etched in the

copper, resulting in an exact copy of the original copper plate.22

Sometimes, after this entire process was completed, more advertisements or news would come in to the press shop. Printers, as previously noted, were often poor and could hardly afford to refuse any paying advertisers. In this case, more pages were needed and a

“Supplement” or “Extraordinary” was published. The extra printing would often double

the amount of work.23

All together, printing was an exhaustive, difficult task, and often took long

periods of time to complete. While there is little direct evidence that tells the exact hours

worked by journeymen and printers, some have suggested it was from sun up until

sundown. “Composition by candlelight was popular neither with printer nor with

customer.” Sundown may have cued quitting time for composers, but that was not the

case for the work of press-men, whose job it was to operate the manual inking of pages.

Printer James Watson of Edinburgh said that a press man in England and in America

“works Seventeen or Eighteen Hours…indeed there is a Necessity for working much,

their Wages are so small.” Pay was indeed small. Journeymen were paid by how many

ems of type they set, and according to Wroth, a compositor in the early nineteenth

century had to work nine hours a day for six days a week in order to earn $8.24

For all its hardships, printers were invested in the publishing business, and few

ever considered a different occupation. Not only did the position demand a certain

amount of respect among working men, it was the only trade many of the printers knew.

Most had been indentured as apprentices at a press shop at an early age, a well- established way of training the youth of a community and ensuring the replenishment of

the workforce. Most apprenticeships lasted up to ten years. Some, like Thomas, was as

young as six years old when he was bound to “avoid drunkenness and the pursuit of

carnal enjoyment and to serve his master truly until he should attain the status of

manhood.” Others were made to sign a written agreement not to “gamble, marry,

fornicate, patronize taverns, buy and sell without the master’s permission, or divulge

business secrets.” Benjamin Franklin’s apprenticeship was meant to last from the time he

turned 12-years-old until he was 21, and John Peter Zenger was bound between the ages

of thirteen and twenty-one.25

Apprentices were an important, if overworked, part of what kept a press shop

humming. They worked alongside printers for long hours six days a week performing

difficult and menial tasks. They were regularly punished and never paid. All profits the

boys may have earned belonged to their masters. The heavy toil of being a printer’s

apprentice was sometimes unbearable. It can be assumed from the frequent

advertisements for runaway printer’s apprentices that many apprentices found the work

far too oppressive. Even Benjamin Franklin ran away from the printing shop where he

was indentured to his older brother, James. Wroth suggested that runaway apprentices

must have been a common sight on Colonial highways.26

Those who endured did so only because the loathsome apprenticeship promised

them the chance of eventual self-employment, according to Frasca. Of all apprentices in

Colonial society, a printer’s apprentice had the most to hope for, since their trade had the

potential to bring them both a livelihood and high social standing. Those who advanced

from apprentice to printer by the time of the Stamp Act in 1765 reaped more prestige and

riches than any Colonial printer ever before. It wasn’t only political unrest that caused

newspaper circulations to shoot up. The Colonies were growing rapidly, and a higher

population meant more potential subscribers for each printer. New York had jumped

from 18,000 people to 25,000 between 1760 and 1775. Boston had a population of

16,000. Philadelphia had nearly doubled its population in those fifteen years and was now

a thriving city of 40,000, making it larger than every British city except London.

Charleston had 12,000 people and Newport 11,000.27

Better still, this growing population was highly literate. A surprising amount of

Colonists could and did read local newspapers. The work of Julie Williams has shown

that learning and reading was highly valued in Colonial society. About 70 percent of men

living in America could read and write by the beginning of the 1700s, and more than a

quarter of the women were literate. This was a people who not only could read, but did—

ravenously. Mechanics, young people, and ordinary citizens valued the written word just as much as the learned clergy and the wealthy plantation owners. Members of all levels of society collected private libraries full of highly intellectual books, newspapers, and pamphlets covering a wide variety of subjects.28

Newspapers thrived in this intelligent and literate society. By the mid eighteenth

century, most newspapers had an average circulation of 500 or 600 readers. By the time

of the American Revolution, some had skyrocketed to a reported 3,600. Compounded

with the fact that copies of each newspaper were commonly passed from hand to hand

and viewed over and over again at local taverns and shops, the actual number of readers

was even higher.29

Colonists looked to papers, both local and foreign, for enlightenment,

entertainment, and the airing of ideas. Newspapers provided news from Europe as well as

from around America. They relied heavily on clippings from other foreign and American

papers, as well as contributions from local writers. Essays, poems, and letters from

readers were all published alongside news.30

Davidson recorded that about one fourth of the papers were advertising, another

fourth crime and tragedy, and the rest foreign and domestic news. Copeland broke down

the content even further. According to him, the content of the Colonial newspaper can be

sorted into several categories: sensational stories, crops, everyday occurrences, the sea,

encounters with Native Americans, crime and the courts, slavery, articles dealing with

women, children, and the home, diseases, religion, and entertainment. Literature, poetry,

gaming, sports, animals, agriculture, oddities, natural occurrences, weather, obituaries,

and social news can all be included in this final category.31

Colonial newspapers also printed many political discussions. Just how influential these writings were in pushing the Colonies towards revolution has been greatly debated.

Most historians agree that printers did make their mark in the politically charged

atmosphere during the decade proceeding independence. As Boltein observed, colonial

newspapers had become capable “at once of greater good and more serious mischief,

depending on the perspective of readers.” Others have famously asserted that, “in

establishing American independence, the pen and the press had a merit equal to that of

the sword.” Some even boldly assert that without the press, independence might never

have been declared.32

Certainly, the American Revolution was unexpected. Historians have long

asserted that Colonials had everything to gain from their connection to Britain. Sailors

may have grumbled about trade restrictions, but it was the British navy that protected their travels. Merchants may have wished for a freer commerce system, but they reaped the benefits of monopolies only open to them because of their connection to the powerful trading country. It was British troops who protected border towns from Indian attacks.

Britain financed road construction and paid for governmental expenses. They may have disliked the current administration and their policies, but only a handful had ever actually considered breaking away from England, even as late as 1774.33

More important, Colonists had a strong sense of connection to Britain. Many

even thought of the far-away island as “home.” Most Americans, including printers, were

fiercely proud to belong to England, the mightiest nation in the world, and had flourished

with Britain’s help and protection. They may have been at loggerheads with the government, but most simply argued for the return of policies the way they were in 1763, not for independence.34

The first true act of rebellion against Britain came after the infamous 1765 Stamp

Act forced Colonists to purchase stamped paper for all legal and commercial documents.

Parliament, it can be assumed, did not levy this tax with spite or as any type of

punishment. Raising prices to a halfpenny on each half sheet of paper and a penny for the

next largest size did not seem too harsh a fee, especially considering all the mother

country had done in protecting the Colonies during the recent French and Indian War.

The tax infuriated the Colonies. In particular, it alienated three important members of

American society: the lawyers, who used paper for legal documents; the clergy, who needed paper for similar reasons; and the printers, whose entire business revolved around paper. The lawyers and clergy put fire under the other Colonists with their passionate orations. The printers, of course, did what they could to rankle public opinion through the written word.35

At the center of the conflict was a basic revulsion to change. For years, the British

government had more or less left America to its own devices. The Colonies had been

conducting themselves as autonomous states. Up to this point, Parliament had chiefly allowed the Colonies to regulate themselves in matters of trade, finance, and manufacturing. The Stamp Act represented a new era of direct taxation. The Colonies balked like a spoiled child after a rule that had always been present was finally enforced.

Ironically, the Colonies themselves had voted for a similar stamp act in 1755. The only important difference between the two acts was that the Colonists themselves had levied

the first, while the Stamp Act of 1765 had been put into play by Parliament.36

Compounding these issues was an economic depression that swept the country

following the end of the Seven Years’ War with France. City dwellers were the hardest hit. Boston’s port was floundering long before the British closed off shipments with the

Boston Port Act. Workers in other cities were struggling to find employment. Botein

argued that the difficult economic position of the Colonies “compelled [printers] to avoid

making enemies.” These financial problems only heightened the sense of unbearable oppression when England began levying taxes on the Colonies in the 1760s.37

This monetary stress was not an entirely negative occurrence. It united the

Colonies as nothing had done before. Since America’s beginning, the Colonies had functioned almost as 13 separate nations. The southern Colonies were largely Anglican and lived in a sort of plantation-run aristocracy. The northern Colonies were “commercial and nonconformist.” When their interests did align, the people and local governments were jealous of and anxious to out-do each other. The economic distress of America forced the individual Colonies to embrace each other. Breen claimed that while it took time to unify the thirteen Colonies, it was their common experience as consumers that finally bonded them together. This “shared experience…provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest.”38

This new form of protest was vocalized in great part within the pages of Colonial newspapers. Beginning at the time of the Stamp Act, Colonists on both sides of the fight would air their grievances and argue their logic in the written columns of their local paper each week. Patriot and Tory writers clashed over the justness of each new act. Patriot printers reasoned that Parliament was acting illegally. Tory printers argued back that the violent measures taken by the Sons of Liberty in attempts to inspire redress were just as illegal. All questioned the qualifications and motives of their leaders.

Newspapermen challenging their government was hardly a new phenomenon.

London pressmen had long questioned and sometimes even mocked English Parliament.

The British government had attempted to put restraints on the presses by means of prosecuting for seditious libel. Those convicted were whipped, imprisoned, fined, and put

in the pillory. Despite these punishments, the printers continued undeterred. By the time

of King George III’s accession to the throne, the press had become “too much a part of

England’s political culture to be easily repressed or manipulated by government.”

Newspapers and pamphlets were read in taverns, inns, clubs, and coffeehouses, fueling

“animated exchanges which filled the air along with the tobacco smoke.”39

Stories of brave London newspapermen that drifted over to America helped boost

the morale of Colonial printers. John Wilkes was lauded as a popular icon of liberty for

his use of the press. After the radical politician printed libelous remarks about the king in

the forty-fifth issue of his newspaper, the North Briton, the government imprisoned him

and barred him from his seat in parliament. When he defiantly refused to retract his

words, newspapers in England and America heralded him as the champion of truth and

liberty.40

Colonial Patriots looked to Wilkes as an example of bravery and righteousness

when they launched their own attack on Britain. Like their hero, they refused to back

down. Both Tory and Patriot printers did what they could to sway the masses to their

side, but the Patriots did it better. Some historians have claimed that it was the Patriot

press’s effective propaganda that convinced the Colonies to revolt. Schlesinger wrote that

the press instigated, catalyzed, and synthesized the many forms of propaganda and brought action and political fervor to a head. He also agreed with Ramsay in claiming

“the exertions of the army would have been insufficient to effect the revolution, unless the great body of the people had been prepared for it, and also kept in a constant disposition to oppose Great Britain.”41

As a tool for propaganda, the press knew no equal in the eighteenth century.

Davidson, who has made a study of the propaganda used during the Revolutionary War,

explained the term as “an attempt to control the actions of people indirectly by

controlling their attitudes.” Revolutionary writers such as Samuel Adams helped give

expression to grievances that had been germinating for years while at the same time

arousing national hopes and fears. Thus, the newspapers of the Revolutionary period

helped develop national feeling and stimulated ideals of democracy. In fact, Davidson

asserted that without the work of propagandist newspapers, “independence would not

have been declared in 1776 nor recognized in 1783.”42

Along with the written word, it is apparent that the value of images as a form of propaganda was not lost on revolutionaries. Broadsides and almanacs were illustrated

with political images heavily slanted to the Patriot cause. Schlesinger wrote that almanacs

often used “emotionally-charged pictures on their covers, from depictions of tyranny to cuts of heroes like Wilkes and Dickinson.” These almanac illustrations were only matched in their ability to sway public opinion by pictures used in broadsides, according

to Schlesinger. 43

Davidson suggested that visual images are one of the best forms of propaganda, since they play so heavily on human emotions. Agreeing with the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words, the historian wrote that pictures are particularly valuable in influencing the illiterate or poorly educated. While a great deal of the Colonists were educated men, there also were a great number of workers unable to understand the

written word. The engravings that circulated throughout the colonies must have had a great impact on this portion of the population.44

Colonial newspapers were far behind English ones in using engravings as political

ammunition. American printers hadn’t thought to illustrate a newspaper article with an

engraving until 1707, while printers in London were already making good use of the skill.

London newspapermen not only used these engravings to embellish news items, they also

habitually lampooned the government with satirical cartoons. These cartoons brought

together the complicated symbolism of the Italian Renaissance and the “fashionable new

art of Caracatura,” or the exaggeration of features for “satirical effect.” Ironically,

London papers and artists most commonly used this technique to support the American cause. Historians have suggested that this pro-American stance was not as unpatriotic as

it appears at first glance. Instead, the cartoonists were supporting the struggle for liberty.

The Americans were not, after all, foreigners. True opponents of the war refused to even

consider the Colonists as rebels. Americans were nothing more or less than oppressed

Englishmen, and the artists would attack their oppressors whole-heartedly. London

newspapers continued their pictorial warfare throughout the duration of the American

Revolution.45

Engraving was present in America, but it was not yet as politically charged.

Artists often advertised the sale of prints from original designs they had engraved to be

sold individually. Some of these works were practical – maps, architectural designs, musical scores, trade cards. Far more common were more creative works, such as historical prints, portraits, landscapes, ornamental designs, illustrations of fictional stories, and illustrations of current events. Advertisements and other evidences suggest

many colonists decorated the walls of their homes with prints and collected images

created by local engravers. One Colonial Bostonian, Peter Faneuil, had amassed over two

hundred and fifty pictures, mostly engravings, by the time of his death in 1743. Another

Colonial, Peter Kalm of New York, described the walls of the homes in his city as “quite covered with all sorts of drawing and pictures in small frames.” Drepperd suggests that this was due to the interest given to news in the eighteenth century. Heroes and legends were immortalized in the vivid writings of Colonial newspapers, and it seems only logical that the Colonists would be eager to see a visual representation of these occurrences.

Some were original, others, like many of Paul Revere’s works, were copies or adaptations of British engravings. 46

Political engravings were not as common. The first in America was published in the Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9, 1754. The now famous image of a severed snake with the words, “JOIN, or DIE” printed above it was well received and often copied throughout the Colonies. The image was originally created by Benjamin Franklin as a call for the Colonies to unite in self-defense during the French and Indian War, and was resurrected again during the Stamp Act Crisis.47

Despite this image’s widespread success, Colonial printers rarely published any new political engravings in their newspapers. As Davidson pointed out, while magazines and almanacs were usually illustrated, the list of pictures inserted into newspapers is a

“short and unimpressive” one. It has been suggested that the lack of engravings can be attributed to practical problems. Engravings were too expensive and time-consuming to create for something produced weekly.48

Most commonly, a nameplate engraving was the only ornamental design used in the entire newspaper. Some of these designs were used for years at a time. A few of these engravings appear to have been whatever the printer had at hand, such as a cut of a crow

and a fox, a post rider, or a hand holding flowers. These designs were inserted purely for

ascetic appeal.

More commonly, the nameplate engravings were political in nature. Local artists

such as Henry Dawkings of Philadelphia, Paul Revere of Boston, Nathaniel Hurd of

Boston, and Amos Doolittle of Connecticut were sometimes enlisted to construct these engravings, but only rarely. More often, the printers themselves would create a cut to embellish their paper, instead of paying for someone else to execute the design. This made the designs look less professional but mean more personally to the printers. When they chose the design and created the engraving themselves, the image became a symbol of their own beliefs, as well as the symbol of the newspaper’s political tint. 49

Different political symbols graced the nameplates of many Colonial newspapers.

The images themselves varied widely. Because each cut was individually created and

produced, even engravings of the same symbol were often slightly individualized. The

engravings used by the ten newspapers selected for this study can be grouped into four categories: Britannia liberating a bird, the female image of Liberty, a snake, or, most commonly, the king’s coat of arms. Each of these emblems had a distinct meaning well known to the Colonists who saw them at the top of the front pages of newspapers.

The interpretation of the symbolic Britannia liberating a bird is described in

Thomas’s History of Printing. Thomas explained that the woman, seated in the

foreground, represents Britannia, with the royal coat of arms of France lying on the ground before her. A bird representing the American Colonies is attempting to take flight, but is held down by a string attached to the French arms. Britannia is depicted in the act

of snipping the string with a pair of scissors so that the bird can fly free of its oppressor.

See figure 1.50

Figure 1 Britannia liberating a bird

This particular combination of symbols may have its roots in the French and

Indian War, a nine-year conflict fought in both America and Europe, which ended only in

1763 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. France, the historical enemy of Great

Britain, is depicted as oppressive, holding back the American Colonies from their

glorious destiny. Britain, in contrast, is the liberator – gentle, kind, and protective.

America as the bird is seen flying away from both country’s symbols, suggesting its blossoming autonomy. The use of such a symbol suggests the printers who employed this device viewed Britain as a caring but mildly indifferent parent figure – ready to intervene when needed, but only when needed.

Britannia in the form of a woman or goddess goes much further back. Britannia

was named during the reign of Roman Emperor Claudius after the island was taken over

by the Roman army. The first pictorial use of Britannia as a goddess was not until the

reign of Hadrian, when she was imprinted on the reverse side of a Roman coin. After the reign of Antoninus Pius, Britannia disappeared from Roman Britain until the early

seventeenth century. The resurgence of this old symbol has been attributed by some to the classicism of the Renaissance. Whatever the cause, she was again in use, this time as a symbol on a handful of various items, such as an English coin and metal engravings in her typical attire. She is usually seen seated and dressed classically. In one arm, she typically holds a spear, and the other is usually resting on a shield.51

The image became established in the middle of the eighteenth century, giving an

“impression of simplicity in what Britannia is and what she represents.” In some cases, such as in the engraving, King George. Sea Dominion the Honour of the British Flag.

Liberty, Property, Trade and Commerce for Ever, Britannia is thought to be used as a way to show the nation’s unquestioning devotion to the accession of King George III.

Britannia as an emblem became representative of all Patriotism and the quintessential symbol of English pride. She was often depicted as keeping company with other allegorical figures, such as Liberty, Justice, Religion, and Plenty.52

Figure 2. Minerva liberating a bird.

Many of the newspapers which once used the symbol of Britannia in their nameplates later changed this figure for that of Minerva, another mythological emblem

(see fig. 2). She is usually seen in similar attire as Britannia, with a simple drape covering her. Instead of a spear, however, Minerva carries a pole with a liberty cap perched on top.

This symbolism is derived from the Roman practice of manumission, in which a slave was touched by a rod, the vindicta, and was presented a cap, or pileus, which they then wore as a symbol of their freedom. The pileus was introduced in America as a symbol of liberty early on during the Colonial period on an illuminated obelisk designed by Paul

Revere for the 1766 celebration of the repeal of the Stamp Act in Boston.53

Engravings of snakes used in Colonial nameplates hearkened back to Benjamin

Franklin’s JOIN, or DIE cut (see fig. 3). This symbol, according to Olson, represented both unity and self-defense when it was first created during the French and Indian War.

It played off a folk legend that a “joint snake” could be broken in pieces and still live if its parts were only brought together again. The Colonies had been separated in the past.

Now, in their time of crisis, they would survive only if they were united. By joining together, they could fend off their enemies.54

Figure 3 “JOIN, or DIE” first published in the Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9, 1754

The image was resurrected several times during the pre-Revolution years. At first, it was used to inspire unity among the Colonies in defense against the Stamp Act. This

time, the enemy was not France, but the British. The snake symbolized a united protest

against the hated legislation. By the time it was used in newspaper nameplates, the image

had developed and had an entirely new meaning (see fig. 4). It no longer symbolized the

need for cooperation in the name of survival. It now spoke of limitless power when the

Colonies were bound together in a common goal. In this way, the snake became one of

the first and most lasting symbols to represent America as one united, strong body. As

time went on, it could be seen on several Colonial flags, the paper currency of at least

four provinces, the War Department Seal, and carved into the picture frames of important

American leaders, as well as in the nameplates of several newspapers. From 1775 to

1777, it could also be seen on numerous military flags with the warning, “Don’t Tread on

Me.”55

Figure 4. New-York Journal, or General Advertiser nameplate 1774

The king’s coat of arms was by far the most common symbol in nameplates (see figs. 5-7). The use of the king’s arms has long been an established way to show support and affiliation with the crown. Today, only those to whom the Queen gives permission – usually those who supply the royal household – may use the royal coat of arms as an insignia. Either this rule was not in place in the late eighteenth century, or it was largely ignored in the American Colonies, as many businesses and buildings unaffiliated with the

Royal family are said to have had the king’s coat of arms painted or engraved on their wooden signboards. Besides newspapers, inns, taverns, artisan shops, and small traders throughout the Colonies used the king’s arms to add dignity and importance to their businesses. The king’s arms were also displayed in the Colonies’ court rooms, government houses, halls of legislation, executive mansions, official proclamations, and on the title pages of printed laws.56

Figure 5 Official George III Coat of Arms

Figure 6 King’s arms inserted in nameplate of South Carolina Gazette

Figure 7 King’s arms inserted in nameplate of Pennsylvania Chronicle

The king’s arms of the eighteenth century are much like those of today, with only

a few minor changes. The shield, blazoned with the quartered symbols of the House of

Hanover, is supported on the left and right by a golden lion wearing the imperial state

crown and a silver unicorn with golden hooves and a gold chain. The shield is

surmounted by a king’s helmet and crown. 57

The treatment of the British symbols in American cities after the Declaration of

Independence shows just how strongly connected in the minds of the Colonials these

symbols were to British power. After the news of July 4, 1776, the king’s arms were cut

down from churches and tavern signs, and in some cases, burned. A mob in Baltimore

burned an effigy of the king after parading through the streets carrying the dummy. In

Worcester, “the Arms of that Tyrant in Britain, George III” which hung on the courthouse

was “committed to the flames and consumed to ashes.” In New York City, an equestrian statue of King George III was “taken down, broken into pieces, and its honor leveled with

the dust.”58

It has been suggested that the destruction of these symbols was a conscious hearkening back to the ancient Roman practice of Damnatio Memoirae, which entails the

removal of all traces of a man proven guilty of treason. It appears more likely that these

actions were the natural product of a disenchanted mob wanting to discard all emblems of

a hated past. Either way, by demolishing the symbols of Britain, the Americans took the

final step towards independence by solidifying their break from their once-beloved King

and mother-country. Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams that after the

Declaration of Independence was read aloud in King Street in Boston, “the kings arms

were taken down from the State house and every vestage of him from every place in

which it appeard and burnt in King Street. Thus ends royall Authority in this State, and

all the people shall say Amen.”59

Symbols and engravings of the Colonial period have perennially been favorite for

historians and art aficionados alike, even if newspaper nameplate engravings have been

chiefly ignored. Collections of these prints on display have caused much stir in both the

twentieth and twenty-first centuries. A collection of 300 of these prints put on display by the Department of Fine Arts in the Library of Congress in 1931 was such a success that the Metropolitan Museum of Art displayed its own collection of American engravings

soon after. Nearly 150 engravings were showcased in Durham, North Carolina in 2006.

Another collection of engravings received high praise after it made its way to the New

York Public Library in 2007. The New York Times claimed that the political prints in this particular exhibit showed the great effect images had on America as it grew into the country it is today. “History is in the hands of those who document it as much as it is in the hands of those who make it.”60

These engravings also have fascinated historians. Some studies examined their

historical accuracy. Others focused on the hidden glimmers of revolutionary meanings

and uses of symbolism. A handful of others even examined specific prints or types of

prints, such as the history of the Stamp Act Cartoon, the use of an Indian to symbolize the

American Colonies, the images transferred onto fans and brocades, and those hung up in

fashionable homes. All these historians agree that visual images played an important and

surprisingly influential role in shaping America.61

Homberger suggested in his 2005 study of eighteenth century portraits that the

work of such artists as Charles Willson Peale and John Trumbull helped form a national

identity for the new country by helping Americans visualize their leaders. Homberger is,

of course, not the first to suggest the powerful influence of images during the time of the

Revolution. In a study focused on four engravings of the Battle of Lexington and

Concord carved by Amos Doolittle, Quimby suggested that historical prints were very

effective as a tool of propaganda. They are not, of course, always an accurate

representation of the past, but Quimby argued that they were never meant to be. “The

purpose was to influence public opinion, not to provide a factual visual account, and in this sense [they were] very effective.”62

One study conducted by Lacey examined the engravings of Blacks in Colonial prints. She maintained that a close examination of engravings of African Americans in

the eighteenth century “shows that the pictorial element provided new information,

contends with or subverted the verbal meaning, and created a dialectic with the text that can enhance understanding of the subject.”63

In a broader study of the pictorial propaganda history of America, Margolin

contended that images have the ability to reach conservative minds better than words. He

claimed pictures allow people to “understand an event or a situation in a new way.” He

cited the image of the severed snake created by Franklin to promote inner-Colonial unity.

Instead of a jumble of words trying to reason out the complicated issue, Franklin’s design

presented a simplified, bare bones argument on the side of cooperation. Even the most

cautious Colonist could not argue against such a simple assertion of strength in

numbers.64

In the end, the swaying of the conservative Colonists proved difficult but

absolutely necessary for the cause of independence. A handful of radicals may have

desperately wanted Revolution, but most Colonists dragged their feet every step of the

way. As late as 1775, Americans still put a remarkable amount of faith in King George

III. Some historians claim it was the reporting of Colonial newspapers who finally

convinced the more timid populace to break away from Britain. Patriots used every kind of propaganda, written and pictorial, in attempts to convince the majority to revolt. They called the king a tyrant and enumerated all the wrongs the Colonies had suffered because of his incompetence. The few political engravings that were produced all showed how the king’s men had in one way or another injured Colonists. Printers published private correspondence and public announcements made by the king, all of which made it undeniably clear that he thought poorly of the Americans. Thomas Jefferson wrote that these statements, rather than bridge the gap between Parliament and the Colonies, served only to enflame the fire of resentment already growing in America “with incendiary purpose.”65

When the king hired Hessian troops to go against the Americans and refused to

even answer the Olive Branch Petition they sent him in hopes of reconciliation, the

damage became irreversible. Their sovereign had not only abandoned them, he had struck

at them as if they were an enemy. Previously cautious moderates who had kept the

country teetering between reconciliation and resistance now were ready to declare

independence.66

With the scale finally tipped in the Patriot’s favor, Tories were left scrambling.

They were incredulous and repulsed at the shifting attitude of the Colonies, and expressed

as much frequently. They thought of Patriots as traitors and rebels. According to scholars,

the goal of the Tory was “to retain the basic structure of Colonial society” and to

“continue governing by right of property, heredity, position, and tradition.” Patriots, on

the other hand, saw the war as a “fight for political independence from Great Britain,”

with a united belief in principles of “religious freedom, political self-determination, and

individual liberty.” The division line between Colonial Tories and Patriots became more

distinct than ever.67

There was no room for fence sitters among the printers, either. Thomas described the publishers of his age as either a “zealous advocate for the American cause,” or

“obnoxious to the Whigs.” Historians in recent times have agreed with this assessment.

Kilmer wrote, “During the years leading to the Revolutionary War, newspapers either

supported the Patriots, those favoring independence, or Tories, those loyal to the British.”

Mott described the era as having a “sharp division between the Patriot press and the papers with Royalist sympathies,” and Kobre wrote, “the economic and political conflict split the Colonial newspaper into two sections, Patriot and Tory.” Kobre also categorized the Colonial printers into two tables: The 39 Patriot Papers and the 18 Tory Papers. One common mass media history textbook reads, “These newspapers were divided into two camps [after 1765]: the Loyalists who supported the crown, and the Patriots who opposed

it.” In fact, it is generally asserted that Colonial printers lived by the political view that

“all who are not for us are against us, and the printer who publishes both sides is merely

carrying water on both shoulders for what he can get out of it.” As Mott put it, “all papers

not fully aligned with the Patriot cause were generally considered Tory papers.”68

One historian says of the division line, “there were Whig and Tory organs,

distinctly a ‘party press,’ notwithstanding the general notion that such a division did not

come into being until after the birth of the Federalist party.” Copeland described most

newspapers in the Colonial period as “staunchly Patriot.” Sloan even goes so far as to

describe different editors under the subheads, “The Patriot Press” and “American Tories.”

The historian described the build up to revolution as more gradual, but still asserted the

printers separated into two distinct parties fairly quickly. The few who attempted to print

both sides to an argument quickly learned to their disadvantage the dangers of remaining

impartial in a time of crisis, and quickly fled to the Tory side of the fight, Sloan wrote.

Once on the Tory side, Loyalist printers fought as viciously and as whole-heartedly as their competition. Sloan asserted that both sides of the press played “an active partisan role.”69

Some historians have attempted to detail the roads that lead printers to such a

divided, partisan press. Initially, historians argued that printers were ideological

revolutionaries, and that they were motivated solely by a desire for freedom. Others have

believed that economics played a far greater role in the printer’s decisions. These

historians “condemned Revolutionary printers who failed to support social justice and

class equality. They believed printers’ business interests frequently provided the

motivation for their social attitudes.”70

Other scholars have advocated the idea of the war as a crusade for democracy.

Forerunner in this school is historian Bailyn, who won the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft

Prize for history in 1967 for his work, The Ideological Origins of the American

Revolution. Bailyn argued that the written word in the American Colonies showed that

“the American Revolution was above all else an ideological, constitutional, political

struggle.”71

In contrast, other historians have argued that the printers of the American

Revolution were spurred on to choosing a side only after finding that impartiality was not an option. These historians cite the bullying and beatings endured by printers who attempted to remain neutral during the Revolutionary period. These scholars contest the idea that the Revolution was “a movement of thought, rapid, irreversible, and irresistible” sparked by Patriot political ideology. Any blanket assertions that this movement “swept past boundaries few had set out to cross, into regions few had wished to enter, fail to allow for human agency and human characteristics like inconsistency, fear, and hesitation.72

Much research has been completed on Colonial newspapers and Colonial

engravings. None, however, has ever discussed the political nameplate engravings of

these newspapers or attempted to interpret their implications. This research will examine

the editions of newspapers surrounding the addition or subtraction of political nameplate

engravings for clues as to why these changes were made, along with the journals, diaries,

and personal correspondence of printers. It is likely that research based on the use of

political engravings, rather than a simple post-hoc content analysis of the printed word

alone, will provide the key to a more thorough understanding of the printers of American

Revolution.

Chapter 3

Early Patriot Newspapers

It was a chilly day in December 1773. Seventeen-year-old Peter Edes stood busily

making punch for “a number of gentlemen” who had congregated at the Boston home of

his father, Benjamin Edes, printer of the wildly revolutionary Boston Gazette, and

Country Journal newspaper. Peter had been forbidden to enter the home’s parlor, so he

could never be sure how many had gathered there, but the group’s purpose was clear to

the young man. Peter later recorded that while he mixed drinks in the kitchen, his father

and the others dressed themselves as Indians and waited for the sun to go down.1

When Boston grew dark, Peter secretly followed the men as they left the house and joined hundreds of others marching “to the wharves where the vessels lay,” ready to go down in history as participants in the world’s most famous Tea Party. The young man watched as the “Indians” hauled chests full of tea onto the deck and threw them overboard into Boston’s harbor. “I remained on the wharf till I was tired, …[then] went home, leaving the Indians [his father included] working like good industrious fellows.”2

It was not the first time Peter’s father had taken his fight for American freedom outside the pages of his newspaper. Benjamin Edes and his business partner, John Gill, had begun attacking the British government within a month of buying the newspaper.

Within a decade, they acquired the largest circulation of any Colonial newspaper, a long list of respected political contributors, and a reputation for rebel rousing.3 Some called

them heroes, while others called them “trumpeters of sedition.”4

Despite their periodic attacks on the British government, Edes and Gill were originally loyal to England, as evidenced by their choice of masthead symbols. From the first month the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal was published under their names in

1755, an engraving of Britannia liberating a bird was weekly inserted on the top of the front page of the newspaper. This symbol, as discussed in chapter two, depicts Britain as a motherly, loving entity able to protect and willing to help the American Colonies. The two countries are seen as different, but connected by love and devotion to each other.

The supposition that the printers chose this symbol as a representation of their own beliefs is strengthened by this fact: when the original engraving of Britannia liberating a bird wore down in 1758, the printers commissioned a local artisan to create another with the same design. The two engravings are identical in symbolic elements, and can only be distinguished by slight differences in artistic style (see figs. 8 and 9).5

Figure 8 Engraving of Britannia liberating a bird, as seen in the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal from April 1755 to August 1758

Figure 9 Engraving of Britannia liberating a bird, as seen in the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal from August 1758-January 1766

Still, this loyalty to Britain was not enough to keep Edes and Gill from being some of the first to lash out against Parliament when news of the Stamp Act was announced in 1765. The act, which taxed paper, legal documents, newspapers, and playing cards, affected all Colonial printers, but none opposed it more adamantly than

Edes and Gill. Their fury was based on principle, but also on the fact that the tax would add an extra expense to their business. This was not, they wrote, a simple, one-time encroachment on the rights of Americans. It was a terrible indicator of just how far the members of Parliament would go to control the Colonies and how little they respected

America’s rights to freedom and justice.

Edes and Gill waged war against the law with surprising hostility. They lambasted the government in the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, printing articles by Samuel

Adams and other insurrectionists. Both printers met regularly with other rebel leaders in

Boston to discuss the current situation of the Colonies and to decide what step the

Americans should take next. The printers were so outspoken and rebellious that

Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard sent copies of the Boston Gazette, and Country

Journal to England as proof of the mayhem inspired by the Stamp Act. In one of his

letters, he wrote that the contributors and printers of the newspaper had been

“admonished by a Friend that if they went on as they were going, they would probably

incur a Censure from G. Britain,” to which the offenders merely replied, “That is what we

want.”6

Each edition of the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal struck out at the Stamp

Act more bitterly than the last. It was an act “designed to inslave their Brethren in

America,” and anyone who purchased stamped goods did so at the “Expence of their

future Liberty.” The printers called for all ships that reached Boston Harbor carrying

stamped paper to be “drove out of Town with a high Hand,” and published

announcements for the funeral of Liberty.7

Edes and Gill were hardly the only printers to be upset by the Stamp Act, though among the most outspoken. In Connecticut, Thomas Green had been printing his newspaper, the Connecticut Courant, for barely a year when the paper began its fight against the act. “Could the greatest enemies we had in the world have contributed more effectually to distress the nation?—What worse had we to fear from our enemies?” an unsigned author lamented during the long months after the dreaded announcement. Green reported almost gleefully that a mob of 500 men on horseback had met the Stamp Officer

assigned to Hartford on the road and forced him to sign a letter of resignation, which

Green then reprinted for all to read. Essays on “Slavery” and “Liberty” covered nearly

every page. Members of the British ministry were called “hungry wolves,” “insatiable

vultures,” devouring monsters,” dirty sycophants,” and “villains.”8

And yet, despite the many insults found within the pages of the Connecticut

Courant, each edition was also printed with a tribute to the British royalty. A simple cut of a heart surrounded by a jeweled crown separated the two words in the newspaper’s title as a part of every front page’s masthead (see fig. 10). The symbol, a clear image of

continuing loyalty to King George III, belied the notion that Green had given up on the

Crown, no matter how much anger he felt towards Parliament.

Figure 10. Heart and crown design found in the masthead of The Connecticut Courant

Samuel Hall, printer of the Newport Mercury in Rhode Island, had printed his newspaper for two years without entering in to any major political battles before the

Stamp Act was put into play. Printing without any engraving at the top of his masthead,

Hall quickly proved himself a fearless champion of the American cause. He published wildly brash articles in his newspaper, at one point claiming that the Stamp Act would ruin the country. One writer featured at the top of the page and styling himself “A

MOURNER,” claimed that the Stamp Act had killed Liberty and invited all its “true

Sons” to attend the funeral. The writer warned any “Bastard-kin” that they were not

wanted, for they would only “sully [Liberty’s] Memory with their Company.” The writer

also promised demonstrations of “Disorder and Riot, either before, at, or after the

Funeral.”9

An actual funeral was indeed held for Liberty in Newport, about which Hall

happily told in his next edition. He quoted Cato in describing the event:

The Dawn was overcast, and heavily in Clouds brought on the Day—the great, the important Day! Big with the Fat of ruin’d Trade and Loss of Liberty!...The glorious Sun was darken’d—and Nature seem’d herself to languish!—The Sons of Freedom sunk beneath the horrid Gloom, and every one was struck with Melancholy at the approaching Funeral of their departed, beloved Friend, LIBERTY!”10

Hall himself fervently hoped the stamped “papers will never bee seen in

America,” and willingly took steps to prevent that event. He printed threats against

anyone who used or purchased stamped paper, including a resolution of New York to offer “Five Hundred Pounds…for finding out any Villain who shall presume to make Use

of S—d P—r.” Hall himself never printed a single edition of the Newport Mercury on

Stamped paper.11

On the opposite end of the long stretch of land that made up the thirteen Colonies,

the people of Charleston, South Carolina were also up in arms over the Stamp Act. Their

local printer, however, was not as obliging as Edes, Gill, or Hall had been in opposing the

act. Peter Timothy, the printer of the well-read South Carolina Gazette, had printed a

handful of spirited essays against the legislation in the months leading up to its

enactment, but rather than resist the law outright once it was in place, Timothy simply

suspended the newspaper’s publication. This tepid defiance was not nearly enough to

please the people of Charleston. They wanted a printer who would stand firm against

Parliament—a printer who would oppose what they considered injustice—not a man who bowed out of the fray.

Rather than wait for Timothy to come around, the infuriated people of Charleston took the matter into their own hands. They raised money for a new newspaper, one that would support their cause. They purchased a shop, press, and types, and chose Charles

Crouch, Timothy’s brother-in-law, as printer of the newly founded South Carolina

Gazette, and Country Journal.12

If Charleston was looking for a more defiant printer, they found him in Crouch.

He printed with relish every bit of news detailing different acts of resistance and the rumors that parliament would soon repeal the act. He even reported that bets had been

made around the coffee houses of America on how soon that blessed day would come.

One gambler offered “one hundred guineas to ten,” that the act would be abolished as

soon as parliament met again.13

Crouch devoted himself to covering the “crisis” almost exclusively, and did so from every angle. Signs of mourning were reported: “As soon as it was known that the stamps were really arrived, all the vessels in the harbour lowered their colours to signify mourning, lamentation, and woe. Alas! What have we done to merit such treatment from our mother country, and our brethren?” Crouch printed accounts of practical actions being taken by the Colonies to combat the Stamp Act. Already, merchants and retailers had made agreements “not to buy any goods, wares, or merchandizes… that shall be shipped from Great-Britain… unless the Stamp Act shall be repealed.” Some Colonists,

Crouch reported, planned to leave America and the British Empire altogether rather than suffer such injustices, “thinking it, as they say, more eligible than to live…where they are

governed by laws, in the making of which they have not so much as the poor consolation of a consent.”14

The most telling of Crouch’s inclusions was not found in any of the essays or news briefs he printed, however. Instead, one of the most meaningful insights into the printer’s beliefs can be found within the nameplate of the first edition ever printed of the South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, published in December 1765. At the top of this edition, just below the newspaper’s name, Crouch printed the words: “The united Voice of all His Majesty’s free and loyal Subjects in AMERICA,----LIBERTY and PROPERTY, and NO STAMPS.”15

This simple motto proved to be very indicative of how Crouch would later print his newspaper. The tone is defiant and strong. The printer refused to kowtow to the stamp collectors or to the unlawful acts of Parliament. Yet there is also, just as clearly, an assertion of devotion and loyalty to the King of England. The South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal represented the “free and loyal Subjects in America.”16

As if to strengthen his claim of loyalty to his Sovereign, Crouch also inserted into the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal’s nameplate a large, elegant engraving of the king’s coat of arms. Just as the articles printed in his newspaper could not give any impression other than utter defiance to the Stamp Act, the nameplate of the South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal could not help but tell of an unfaltering loyalty to

King George III.

All four patriot newspapers, then, included both seditious writings and loyal symbols throughout the Stamp Act crisis. This open display of seemingly opposing positions is not as contradictory as it first appears, however. The fight against the Stamp

Act was not, after all, a fight for independence, or even for liberty in the sense the word

was used a decade later. The printers and the newspaper’s contributors demanded only

the rights they felt were promised them by the English constitution.

Examples of continuing loyalty to Britain can be seen in more than just the

mastheads of these newspapers. Patriotic feeling peppered nearly every article printed,

including many of the more rebellious articles. In particular, loyalty to the King remained

firm. As often as Stamp Officers, local governors, and Parliament received the wrath of writer’s acidic pens, King George III remained unscathed. In fact, he was revered. Just months after the Stamp Act was enforced, the Connecticut Courant reported details of whole cities celebrating the King’s birthday by ringing out bells and shouting loyal phrases. “God be with our true British King,” “Long live their Majesties,” and “Heaven preserve the Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family” were reported to have been shouted out by the people of the Colonies.17

In South Carolina, Crouch asserted that the hated tax would “plunge two millions

of subjects into abject slavery, and eventually the whole nation,” but if the Colonists would just “with unshaken loyalty to George the Third, and fidelity to posterity, oppose this flagrant ministerial infraction of Charters, and violation of publick faith” and “be true to themselves and the house of Hanover,” then all the “united cunning” of those who promoted the Stamp Act would “never establish their darling scheme of tyranny.” In

Boston, Edes and Gill printed phrases like, “fear nothing but slavery, love your

LIBERTY, and fight for it like men who know the value of it,” and “GOD bless

GEORGE the third, King of Great Britain, and King and Lord of America. May his reign be long and glorious” only centimeters apart from each other.”18

Even Hall, who still printed the Newport Mercury without any nameplate

engraving at this time, showed his unyielding support of the King in his newspaper’s

pages. The same article that detailed the funeral of Liberty ended with an account of the

Sons of Liberty singing praises to the King:

The Birthright of Britain is FREEDOM, The contrary is worse than Death’s Pangs HUZZA for GEORGE the THIRD BRITANNIA’s SONS despise Slavery, And dare to be nobly free!19

These printers, like most of the Colonists, believed their problems could not be

pinned on the King. In fact, they believed that the only reason the King had not yet

intervened on their behalf was because a handful of black-hearted government ministers

had kept America’s claims from him. “These ministerial hacks, would fain have us believe that his sacred Majesty, ever lov’d by his American subjects, would be displeas’d to hear their murmurs at the sight of chains...What an affront to our sovereign himself!”20

It was towards those evil Parliament members that the printer’s arrows were aimed. They had no pity on these “men of bad principles” who had caused so many problems for the Colonies. The printers argued the Stamp Act was not only mean-spirited and oppressive, it was illegal. “The consent of the inhabitants…was not given to the said act of Parliament, personally or by representation, actual or virtual, in any sense or degree that at all computes with true intendment, spirit, or equitable construction of the British constitution.”21

Still, the printers did not consider a break between America and Britain. The very

suggestion, in fact, seemed absurd. The Colonies had everything to gain by maintaining

their connection to Britain – safe passage on the sea, trade monopolies, protection from

the Indians prowling their borders. The men and women of the Colonies had spent their

entire lives considering themselves British subjects living in the American Colonies. The

Colonists did not see their fight against the Stamp Act as a move towards independence,

but as a chance to “form a more perfect Idea of true Allegiance to his Majesty.” After all,

the happiness of America could never be more “effectually promoted than in our full

possession and continued enjoyment of the rights and privileges of the British

constitution, which we have not forfeited, but ought to hold, as Englishmen.”22

The printers did their part by refusing to use stamped paper. Some were more committed than others. In order to avoid punishment for not using stamped paper, most printers around the Colonies omitted their own moniker or altered the names of their newspapers. Not so with Edes, Gill, Hall, Green, and Crouch. Their newspapers continued business as usual, obstinately refusing to bow in any way to the tax. The

Newport Mercury and The South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal did not skip a single issue. Green’s Connecticut Courant suspended for a short time, but quickly was restarted with more venom than ever before.23

These shows of defiance were just the beginning. The four newspapers continued

to print more and more aggressive essays calling for the repeal of the Stamp Act. One

contributor, writing as the voice of Liberty, wrote:

When God created rational intelligence, and made man in his own image;--the resemblance could not subsist without me; …God has made freedom essential, and united it to the very nature of man. And what God has joined, let no man attempt to separate.24

The Stamp Act was not, the printers claimed, something that would go away on

its own. Edes and Gill wrote that all men who could naively believe such things were

either “fools or knaves.” “Is reason to be blinded with such a thin veil?,” they asked. “Is the most valuable blessing in life, liberty, to be thus trifled with?” The Colonies could not stand idly on and watch as their rights were first challenged and eventually destroyed.

Crouch printed the following poem to spur the Colonies on to action:

ART thou persuaded, for a moment cool, That nature made the slave, and mark’d the fool?... That Charters, Privileges, Patents, Powers, Were ours till now,, and now NO LONGER ours? The Stamp and Land-Tax are as blessings meant? And opposition is our free consent? Nor stretch thy plant faith, adopt this creed, And THEN receive the Stamping Act indeed.”25

While the printers attempted to urge on the general public with one hand, they

helped those already devoted to the cause with the other. All four newspapers regularly included notes to the local Sons of Liberty on where and when meetings would be held.

All those “friends to LIBERTY,” who “are not already SLAVES, in OPPOSITION to all

ATTEMPTS to make them so,” were invited to attend. Other more important news was also passed on to the Sons of Liberty. The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal pointed out the arrival of ships carrying stamps and even occasionally included the printer’s thoughts on what should be done once the Sons of Liberty had found the stamped paper.

“When you have obtained them, commit them to the flames in King-Street, this day at one o’clock.”26

The mob-like actions of the Sons of Liberty were heartily approved of by all these

printers. Crouch called the group “glorious!” and “the only guardians and protectors of

the rights and liberties of America.” He hoped, with a “heart united [with the Sons of

Liberty’s cause], to wish intrepid perseverance, and a happy issue of this strange, but just, conduct, to be transmitted to posterity.”27

The Sons of Liberty embodied the zeal the printers wished for America. They

hoped eventually all Colonists would feel Liberty, and not just speak of it:

The love of one’s country, or public spirit, is a phrase at present, in every body’s mouth, but it seldom goes deeper;- -it is talked of without being felt; Some mention it without having any ideas at all of it, but only as a…thing which everybody likes.28

True conviction, the printers argued, was something much more. True conviction in the

cause of liberty would “expose imposers, and …resist oppressors;--it is to maintain the

people in liberty and security.” Where this conviction was found lacking, there “tyranny

is claimed; tyranny being nothing else but the government of one man, or of a few men,

over many, against their inclinations or interest.”29

It was clear to these printers that they had just such a group of tyrannical men on

their hands. Word of Parliament’s disgust with the actions of the Colonies arrived

frequently by sea. George Grenville of Parliament, in particular, heartily disagreed with

the actions the Colonies had taken against the Stamp Act. It was reported in the South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal that Grenville had done his best to fix the word

“REBELLION on the late riotous proceedings” in America. He was not, (“God be

praised,”) successful, but the insult to America was felt regardless.30

There was only one man in the British government who these five printers

believed had America’s true interest at heart: King George. Parliament, they felt, could

not be trusted. To the King alone they gave their whole-hearted allegiance. All four

newspapers continued to show their open support of the Crown, not only through the essays they chose to publish, but also through their nameplate engravings. Crouch continued to print the king’s coat of arms in his nameplate. Green likewise continued to

print under the symbol of the heart and crown. Edes and Gill updated the Boston Gazette,

and Country Journal’s engraving of Britannia liberating a bird once again in January

1766 after their second cut had worn down. The design of a new engraving they

commissioned remained symbolically the same, making it the third time they paid to use

this symbol in their masthead.31

Hall’s emblematical pledge to his King was perhaps the most blatant of all the

early patriot printers. Since he had taken over the Newport Mercury, he had not printed a

single edition with an engraving in the nameplate. That changed on February 17, 1766. In

a display of loyalty and confidence in the King, Hall inserted an engraving of the King’s

coat of arms in the middle of the Mercury’s masthead that day.

The engraving was the same that had once been used by James Franklin, who

founded the newspaper, and had probably been lying around the printer’s shop during the

years Hall ran the newspaper. It could be argued, of course, that Hall simply wanted to

dress up his front page and decided to use what he had on hand, rather than commission a

new cut. But this line of thinking does not square with the printer’s past behavior. Hall

had never used an engraving before. In fact, he had actually made the decision to delete

the king’s arms engraving when he first took over the shop, presumably to make his own

mark on the Newport Mercury. Why revert back to the newspaper’s old ways after all that

time? The answer, as always, is simple. For all his anger and quarrels with Parliament,

Hall still remained faithful to the king.

And so, the seemingly dualistic political nature of the Colonial patriot newspapers continued to thrive in all four cities—each supporting the Crown but lashing out bitterly against the Parliament. As Hall printed, the people of the Colonies were undoubtedly loyal

subjects of “our rightful sovereign King GEORGE the Third,” but it was this very loyalty that gave them the right to “stand fast in the support of …the rights of every British subject; and the liberties and privileges confirmed to us.”32

The Colonists, including these printers, had little doubt that their woes would

soon be over. As soon as the King heard of their plight, they were sure their Sovereign

would rescue them from the malicious ministers in Parliament who had attempted to

enslave them. It was for this reason they could declare passionately that to submit to the

acts of parliament would be “worse than Death’s Pangs,” and with the next breath shout,

“HUZZA for GEORGE the Third!”33

Copies of pleas from the Colonies and addresses of their English heroes like John

Wilkes to the King were reprinted often, and sometimes the printers included “his

MAJESTY’s most gracious ANSWER.” These responses were often short but mostly kind. Even though the King’s reply’s never fully supported the American’s cause, they

were enough to encourage the Colonists to hope for quick relief.34

By late spring in 1766, the Colonies were sure their troubles would soon be over.

In Boston it was whispered that, “there is great reason to believe they will recommend a

repeal, or at least some considerable alterations of the American Stamp-Act.” Writers

from Newport reported, “all the letters, petitions, memorials, &c. transmitted from the

American Colonies to the ministry, are now placing by high authority, in order to be laid before an august assembly.” Another wrote, “it is generally thought if the Stamp Act is

not repeal’d it will be suspended,” and yet another wrote that it was “this session of

parliament” that would “relieve the Americans.”35

Victory and relief were indeed on the horizon. On May 1, 1766 the hated Stamp

Act was officially repealed. Large essays covering the front pages of the newspapers

extolled the happy news. The speeches made in parliament for and against the repeal

were reprinted around the Colonies, including at least one account of the speech made by

the king himself. Bells rang, flags flew, and toasts were made in Charleston, Boston, and

Newport. In South Carolina, Crouch reported that the people were so overjoyed they proposed to raise money for the creation of a marble statue of William Pitt, who had championed the repeal in Parliament, as a tribute to “his noble, disinterested, and generous Assistance afforded them towards obtaining the REPEAL OF THE STAMP

ACT.”36

It seemed the battle was won. With the Stamp Act dead, most Colonists settled

peacefully back into their regular lives. A plea for prudence replaced the cries for revolt

within the newspaper’s pages. “Tumult and disorder should be carefully avoided,

especially as we have lawful and laudable means in our hands of obtaining redress, which

must speedily and effectually relive us, if we will act as becomes Americans, with one

voice and one mind.” Most Colonials believed the struggle over legislation and American

rights was over.37

There were however a few hints that the printers, at least, resisted burying the

hatchet. Take, for example, the engravings used by Charles Crouch in South Carolina to

designate important or official news in his South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal.

In late 1766, the printer had begun to use a small, square cut of the king’s coat of arms to

illustrate official notices of the British government. Every royal proclamation,

parliamentary declaration, and new provincial tax was in this way set apart from the rest

of the news. There is only one noticeable exception. A proclamation issued in 1767 by

Charles Grenville, governor of South Carolina, who had attempted to uphold the Stamp

Act, was noticeably not decorated. The content of the proclamation was fairly

commonplace, and the wording was straightforward. The only conclusion to be drawn is

that Crouch had still not forgiven Grenville for his actions during the Stamp Act Crisis.38

Edes and Gill in Boston were also unwilling to forgive and forget. Deprived of any real crisis, the two printers created an uprising of their own. Like Crouch, they chose to attack their Colony’s governor, Francis Bernard. A favorite target during the Stamp

Act days, Bernard must have hoped for some relief from Edes and Gill’s barbs when

Parliament abolished the tax. If so, Bernard was severely mistaken. Without parliament or English ministers to oppose, Edes and Gill’s fight against the governor of

Massachusetts doubled. In the first five months alone in 1767, the Boston Gazette, and

Country Journal turned out at least 21 articles specifically aimed against him.39

It was not long before these leftover prejudices against the government proved

well founded. On June 29, 1767, Parliament passed two acts proposed by Charles

Townshend, known later as the Townshend Duties. Together, the laws taxed specific

goods imported into the Colonies, such as paper, glass, tea, paint, and lead.

The acts infuriated the Colonies. It did not matter that the tax was indirect, or that

the money raised by the taxes would go to help pay for the recent costly war with France,

fought on American soil. The Colonists viewed the Townshend Duties as another

example of taxation on a people who had no representation in Parliament. This, by their

reasoning, was illegal and therefore not to be tolerated. The printers took up the battle cry

once more.

Let us rise then with one voice, and declare like true Englishmen, we abhor slavery, and such as would enslave us; …Tho’ the press… and our righteous opposition to slavery be called rebellion, yet will a true Englishman pursue his duty with firmness, and leave the advent to Heaven.40

In Hartford, Green’s opposition to the duties was more restrained than most. He

was decidedly against the act, but the tone of the Connecticut Courant was restrained.

The arguments made in the newspaper were well reasoned rather than passionate, as

though the printer refused to rebel outright. In fact, Green reinforced his continuing loyalty to Great Britian by replacing his old nameplate engraving of a heart and crown

with one of the king’s arms in December of 1767.

The final edition bearing the heart and crown, rather than the king’s lion and

unicorn, contains an important clue to Green’s mindset before he made the switch.

Within this edition is printed the first of the now famous Letters from a Pennsylvania

Farmer. The Farmer, actually Philadelphia lawyer John Dickinson, wrote against the

Townshend Duties and against Parliament, but moderately so. He did not cry out for

revolt (in fact he claimed he was “in no means fond of inflammatory measures. I detest

them.”), but rather created a logical, reasoned plea for redress. His writings are laced with

an understanding of interdependence, rather than any desire for independence:

Without this authority the benefits [Britain] enjoys from our commerce, must be lost to her: The Blessings we enjoy from our dependence upon her, must be lost to us; her strength must decay; her glory vanish; and she cannot suffer, without our partaking in her misfortune. Let us therefore cherish her interests as our own, & give her every thing that it become Freemen to give, or to receive.41

Green, as if following Dickinson’s lead, continued to print arguments against

Britain, but he did so with a certain sense of restraint. The Colonies were not, after all,

trying to start a revolution. Unlawful taxation they would fight till the death, but England

was still their mother country. After all, as one writer put it, “I never as yet had the least

intimation from any American born, that I remember, that they had any inclination to any

other, than an entire dependence on the crown of Great Britain, as justly established on

the house of Hanover, which has [always] been the case.”42

The Colonies planned to peacefully beseech the government to reconsider the

duties. According to Green and the Connecticut Courant, the average American could

show their support to the Colonies in the meantime by refusing to import anything from

Britain until the Townshend Duties were repealed. By working together, Dickinson wrote, America could convince Britain to re-evaluate its decision, just as it had during the

Stamp Act days. “These Colonies, when they were much weaker, defended themselves,

before this conquest was made; and could again do it.”43

Meanwhile in Rhode Island, the Newport Mercury had been taken over by a far less levelheaded printer. Hall had sold the newspaper in 1768 to a young man named

Solomon Southwick. Southwick “was a poor boy” not formally trained in the printing trade. All the aspects of the trade were “new and strange to him.” The printer’s

inexperience in the printing trade is evident even today. Many of the early imprints

published by his shop are sloppily done. Many pages of the Newport Mercury from this

time period are horribly blurred, and, at times, the ink was so thickly spread across the

type that the papers were smudged badly enough to be illegible. The king’s arms that

Southwick chose to carry forward from Hall’s days as printer often became nothing more

than a rectangular inkblot.44

What he lacked in professional skill, Southwick made up for in patriotic gusto.

The printer continued publishing the tirades against the British that had always made up the core of the Newport Mercury, now fighting the Townshend Duties. Southwick asserted that the Colonies would have been happy to raise money for Britain, had they been appealed to instead of ordered. As it was, however, the Colonies could never agree to the measures taken by the current administration.45

Southwick heavily promoted the idea of non-importation, or an agreement between the different Colonies to not import any goods from Great Britain. Since the

Townshend Duties taxed only imported goods, a boycott against such items seemed to be not only an appropriate means of resisting the tax, but also the Colonies’ best hope for obtaining redress. Southwick glorified all those who found ways to make due without

English goods and entrepreneurs who planned to build factories in America. “We hear that the Colony agents have orders from their constituents, to use their utmost endeavors to obtain an act of parliament for the encouragement of the linen manufactory in North-

America, and for making all kinds of naval stores, such as anchors, cable, cordage, iron- work, sails, masts, etc.”46

The articles published in the Newport Mercury urged its readers to comply with the Non-Importation Agreement, and sometimes suggested that the Colonists should go beyond not importing taxed goods to not importing any goods at all from Great Britain.

One article even went so far as to specifically plead with the young women of Rhode

Island “to use no Snuff but what is manufactured in N. America,” which would “do your

Country and Posterity almost an inconceivable good; and will deserve high Praise.” The

Mercury congratulated merchants in Rhode Island for their agreement to not import any

goods “until ALL the AMERICAN revenue acts are repealed.” Southwick urged his

readers to “keep a lookout that no British, or other goods, should, contrary to the

intention and spirit of our association, be landed anywhere in the county.”47

Rather than view the Non-Importation Agreement a further wedge between

America and Britain, Southwick saw the refusal of the Colonies to pay the taxes as a

peaceable means of reconnecting the two countries. He saw the fight as one that united

Englishmen and Americans since they were, in fact, fighting the same evils. “The

discontents in America are only a recoil of those at home, derived from the same

source.”48

Southwick and the people of Rhode Island had high hopes for the appeals sent by

the Colonies to the King himself for redress. He reprinted the address of the New York

Council to George III in December of 1769. The essay drips with hope for reconciliation

and deference to the king. It reads:

It will afford us the most solid satisfaction to see that mutual confidence and affection, between Great Britain and her Colonies, restored, which has been so greatly interrupted by the duties lately imposed. An event so desirable can be but so highly grateful to his Majesty’s American subjects.49

According to the address, this would “cultivate the friendship and conciliate the affections of the sister nations.”50

Not everyone shared such sentiments. In early December 1769, Edes and Gill and

the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal attacked Southwick for printing “base, false

insinuations” and “numberless insolent pieces, pointed directly at the liberties” of the

Colonies. A writer styling himself “O.A.,” lampooned Southwick as a Tory and accused

him of undermining the cause of liberty. “…You, Mr. Southwick, to subvert this noble

purpose, have too much employed your types.”51

Southwick responded forcefully in his next edition. To reassert his loyalty to King

George III, the printer upgraded the engraving in his masthead to a larger, higher quality

cut of the King’s arms. To make clear his hatred of any kind of tyranny, from home or abroad, he inserted the following strong-worded phrase just beneath the engraving:

“Undaunted by TYRANTS,--We’ll DIE or be FREE.”

The printer still considered himself a loyal subject of the British royalty, but was

strongly opposed to any interference with the rights he believed were legally his,

including what he considered “scandalous” essays printed in Boston intending to

“enslave” his press. Southwick reprinted O.A.’s attack in his own newspaper, then

responded with a biting letter of his own entitled, “To the great Would-be Controller of

the Press in Newport, Mr. O.A.” He assured his readers that his press was “Just, and shall

be so as long as I have any Thing to do with it,” then went on to defend his actions and

his newspaper. Without a free press, he claimed, mankind would “sink down, in one

century, into a State of mere Barbarism.” Southwick went on, defying his accusers to find

an example in his printing of Tory leanings, and thanking God that his press was not

under the “Dictatorship” of the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, “nor that of any

other Son of Tyrrany.” Southwick ended the letter by asserting his own patriotic feeling

and his contempt for his attacker:

For the Future, Mr. O.A. I expect you will not Question me about my Business, but mind your own: if I transgress the Laws of my Country, I expect to be tried, and be condemned or acquitted, by those Laws, and not by such a ridiculous, sycophantic Scribbler as you.52

Southwick’s response, combined with the new masthead design, made the printer’s

feelings clear. He revered the King, but despised the idea of any tyrant, ministerial or

otherwise, controlling his press.

Having spoken his peace, Southwick continued to print in favor of both the Non-

Importation Agreement and the King. Rhode Island and the other Colonies had agreed to

send a plea to their “most gracious Sovereign, for the redress of the grievances

occasioned by sundry late acts of parliament.” Many saw this appeal as their duty to the

Crown, and that if they did not send it, they “should stand self condemned as unworthy

the name of British subjects.”53

The people had reason to hope for the appeal’s success. Rumors that the King had

already protected American interests once reached the Colonies. It was reported that

when certain members of Parliament attempted to push through a bill that would have proven harmful to the Americans, King George III intervened. “His Majesty considered this step as evidently tending … to revive those unhappy divisions and distractions which have operated so prejudicially to the true interests of Great-Britain and the Colonies.”54

With such a gracious and loving Sovereign on the throne, Southwick could not

help but refer respectfully to the King. Official Proclamations were printed with the same

engraving of the king’s coat of arms at their head as the one that graced the front page of

the Mercury. It is no surprise that, for a printer with such devotion to his King, Southwick

had not yet begun to question America’s ties to Great Britain. He fought for America’s

rights, but he also continually praised those with unshakeable loyalty to the Crown. In

one man’s obituary, Southwick praised the deceased as “a zealous advocate for the

welfare of Britain and America, whose interests, from the solidity of his judgment, he

was led to consider as inseparably connected.”55

Not all printers felt the same as Southwick. Edes and Gill of Boston, for example,

despised anyone whose loyalties were not first and foremost to American liberties. They

printed importers’ names in the pages of the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal so that

customers could avoid patronizing such traitors. In the few instances that these warnings

were not strong enough, the Sons of Liberty, with Edes in their number, placed effigies of

merchants who imported in front of their stores to warn away customers. Informers were

tarred and feathered, and a mob forced at least one tarred man to hold a lantern to his face

while they pulled him in a cart through the streets of Boston, so that everyone could see

the fate of traitors.56

A continued connection to Britain was acceptable to Edes and Gill, but only if

Parliament agreed to the Colonist’s demands. Even then, the two printers preferred the

idea of independence. As far as the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal was concerned,

any “political union between Great Britain and the Colonies was…dissolved,” thanks to

Parliament’s unlawful actions against America.57

The Boston printers had more reasons than most to hate the British government.

All of Boston had suffered under the occupation of the city by British troops since

October of 1768. Now, more than a year later, the Bostonians revulsion of the quartered

troops reached boiling point. The people of Massachusetts sent an official plea to

England for the removal of the troops, but when such legal applications for redress failed, cool heads gave way to mob violence. Scuffles between the troops and private citizens

occurred more and more regularly. By late 1769, the number of unruly Sons of Liberty had swelled so much that it took 139 carriages to carry them to outings.58

By December, the city was on verge of riot. Contributors to the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal wrote that Americans could soon expect a “Violent Removing of the Colonies from the British Empire” should British troops remain in Boston and

Parliament continue to ignore the Colonies’ appeals, even though such an event “four or five years ago could hardly have entered into the imagination of the Loyall

Americans!”Edes and Gill happily reported, “the spirit of opposition to the acts of parliament of Great Britain is as high as ever, and general throughout the Colonies.” They praised those Colonies whose demonstrations were “as great as they can well be without

ACTUAL REBELLION.” The printers expressed their deep disgust with all those ruling the British empire in late December:

How will the history of these things read hereafter, when this infatuation shall be at an end? Will not the Historian blush, and feel small, while he is handing down such ridiculous trifles to posterity? And will he not be glad to push on to pages more becoming the dignity of a British minister and a British p—t, to relieve his mind from such humiliating distress?59

Edes and Gill believed it was high time to stop waiting for a foreign power to save the Colonies, and for the Colonies to wake up and start saving themselves. On January 1,

1770, the printers introduced a new nameplate engraving. The engraving of Britannia was removed and replaced with a cut of another woman freeing a bird—Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom, commerce, and ominously enough, of warriors (see figs.11 and 12).

Figure 11 Britannia liberating a bird from the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal

Figure 12 Minerva liberating a bird from the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal

The design is remarkably similar to the original engraving of the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal. Minerva is dressed classically and sits in the same corner that

Britannia once occupied. A city, presumably Boston, still sits in the distance. Minerva is seen in the act of freeing a bird, just as Britannia had been. But there are several key differences between these engravings. First, Minerva is seen sitting on top of a shield bearing the design of the Union Jack, or Britain’s national flag, and holding in her hand a liberty pole and cap. It is important to note that the goddess chose to hold the liberty pole

in her hand, rather than the shield. The Union Jack shield does not even merit a place resting on Minerva’s lap. She is seen, instead, sitting on top of it, suggesting a dominant position over Britain. Minerva is shown as more powerful and far more important. Her decision to hold the liberty pole proudly suggests that liberty is more essential to life than a connection to England.

The second important difference between the two engravings is found in what is holding back the bird, or America. In the Minerva design, the bird is no longer seen tied to a string and held down by the French coat of arms. It is, instead, seen flying away from a small cage, which Minerva has just opened. A direct interpretation of these symbols is both telling and foreboding. The cage, which traditionally represents restriction and confinement, combined with the American symbol of the bird, shows that the two printers viewed the Colonies as imprisoned. If the British government were able, they believed, they would never allow the Colonies to soar to the heights of which they were capable.

The fact that, in the minds of Edes and Gill, only Minerva had the ability to set

America free seems particularly telling. The smile shown on the goddess’s face notwithstanding, Minerva represented conflict and battle. By using her image to represent their newspaper, Edes and Gill set themselves up as warriors for their cause, soldiers in the bloody battle for freedom. Already they saw themselves at war with their mother country. Edes and Gill, who commissioned Paul Revere to carve the engraving for use in the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, obviously had a clear sense of where America might be heading.60

It was not long after Edes and Gill began using this new engraving regularly that

the Bostonians began a real battle against the British troops. By early March 1770, the

hatred between the Bostonians and the British soldiers reached breaking point. Back alley

brawls and bitter name calling no longer provided enough of a vent to stymie the anger

on both sides. On March 5, 1770 an argument between two soldiers and a citizen of

Boston broke out close to Edes and Gill’s printing shop, during which one of the soldiers

tried to run the man through with a sword. The ruckus brought more soldiers out of their

barracks and a mob of young Bostonians from the street, and a confrontation between the

two groups ensued. In the confusion, the soldiers fired their guns, leaving five Bostonians

dead on the ground in King Street.61

Exactly how or why the shots were fired has been debated for centuries. The

Whig account, first published by Edes and Gill, claimed that the captain of the soldiers

cried out, “Damn you, Fire, be the consequence what it will!” The Tories, on the other

hand, claimed the firing was accidental. Edes and Gill, whose print shop was located less

than a half a block away from the scene of the massacre, undoubtedly knew the truth, but were not above altering the facts to better support their own agenda.62

Who actually was to blame is irrelevant. The damage was done. Outrage around

the Colonies was instantaneous. Newspapers from every city attacked Britain for

allowing such a travesty to happen. Printers from every Colony published lengthy

accounts of the killings, painting the soldiers in the worst light possible. As far as many

Colonists were concerned, the soldiers had killed intentionally and vindictively. One

Bostonian reportedly asked the soldiers “if they intended to murder people? They

answered yes, by G—d root and branch!”63

Most of the patriot newspapers lined their borders with the same dark, heavy

rules they had employed to mourn the Stamp Act. Some even included engravings of five

black coffins bearing the initials of each of the slain. All bitterly denounced the British

government as a whole. Newport’s Southwick printed his own lively version of the

Boston Massacre, including a quote from the British officer not found in other accounts,

shouting at the people, “You d—n’d dogs, don’t you deserve to be killed?”64

In Connecticut, Green printed a long account of the killings. He took the event as

evidence of the British troops’ vindictive and oppressive nature. He reported that even

after the initial attack, the soldiers used their bayonets and fired upon “the persons who

undertook to remove the slain and wounded.”65

Not to be outdone, Crouch in South Carolina printed a different version of events.

His graphic depiction aimed to shock, not relate facts. He described the event as “a most

shocking scene,” with the “blood of our fellow citizens running like water through King-

Street, and the Merchant’s Exchange.” The printer created a special Supplement edition

of the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal to print the account. Supplements

were not uncommon additions to his newspaper, but were usually restricted to advertisements alone and were almost always issued on the same day as the South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal itself. The account of the killings certainly did not fit with a Supplement’s usual content. And yet, Crouch filled more than three- quarters of the supplement with news of the massacre and editorials discussing the event, all lined with heavy black rules.66

Why Crouch chose to print news of the Boston Massacre in a Supplement rather

than in his regular newspaper can only be surmised. One possible explanation comes

from an examination of differences between the mastheads of regular editions and

supplemental editions. At this time, Crouch still inserted the same engraving of the king’s

arms into every regular edition of the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, but

never into supplements. It is possible that the printer wanted to publish the account of the

Boston Massacre, but did not want to print such a rebellious essay under the banner of his

King.67

The idea that Crouch became momentarily disgusted with all of the British

government is confirmed by another iconological omission. Before news of the Boston

Massacre had reached Charleston, all the proclamations by the King or speeches by him

reprinted in the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal began with a drop cap

surrounded by a miniature cut of the King’s arms. That changed after the massacre. In the

edition directly following the supplement that detailed the killings in Boston, two front

page addresses entitled “His MAJESTY’s most gracious ANSWER” are

unceremoniously plopped on the bottom half of the page without so much as a space

between them and the paragraph above. There are no signs of distinction, and no

references to the importance of words uttered by the King. The small engraving would

not be used again for months.68

Before the indignation inspired by the Boston Massacre had cooled, something else struck home the seriousness of the times to patriot printers across the Colonies. A printer from New York named Parker had been imprisoned days after the massacre for printing against the British government. Both Southwick and Crouch printed Parker’s story in depth. The tale affected Southwick most. He dedicated more than a page and a half to the story of Parker’s imprisonment, which, considering the Newport Mercury was

only four pages long, was significant. Southwick saw Parker’s story as indicative of the

consequences of his own printing, and the thought caused Southwick a moment’s

hesitation. Southwick took a brief break from his regular attacks on the British

government. He did not stop printing all news of the controversy altogether. He simply

did not cover the arguments for and against to the same degree he had in the past. Rather

than devote entire issues of the Newport Mercury to anti-Parliament essays and news of

the Non-Importation Agreement, he began to temper these accounts with other local

news, including deaths and marriages.69

This pause, however, was short lived. It appears that whatever uncertainty

Parker’s internment inspired in Southwick, it was not enough to deter him entirely. By the end of 1770, the printer was back to his normal speed, continuing his relentless questioning of the acts of Parliament and news of America’s resistance. He even went so far at one point as to print the resolution of Charleston, South Carolina, to punish the city

of New York for breaking the non-importation agreement by discontinuing their

connections with them, “until they properly atone for their treacherous separation from

their countrymen.”70

Calls for the end of importation became louder and louder as city after city

resolved to put away all things British. “America will yet be saved!” wrote one patriot

commending non-importation in the Connecticut Courant, which had been purchased from Green by a printer named Ebenezer Watson. Packages ordered from Britain were received on docks by rowdy groups, confiscated, and then locked away. A New York school’s senior class was praised for unanimously agreeing to attend their commencement wearing clothes of “American Manufacture.” Following suit, Watson got

rid of his own British import: the engraving of the king’s arms that for three years had

graced the front pages of the Connecticut Courant. For the next four months, he printed

with no cut in his nameplate at all.71

The first edition of the Connecticut Courant without an engraving of the King’s

arms proudly proclaims the agreement of the city of Hartford to not import any item from

Britain. The writers of the newspaper claimed the agreement was “of the greatest

importance to ourselves, our country, and to posterity, to the latest Generations.” The

agreement was “the only effectual Expedient to procure a Redress of our Grievances and

a Removal of the unconstitutional Duties,” and was founded on “noble, virtuous, and

truly patriotic” principles. To show his support, Watson began advertising for clean cloth

to use in his presses instead of imported paper.72

All four newspapers reported new cities and towns agreeing to non-importation

each week. The few Colonists who imported anyway were treated harshly. Only a few were punished by unruly mobs, but the local presses crucified all who dared defy the

Non-Importation agreement. When merchants in New York received shipments of goods from England and refused to give them up, they were criticized and rebuked by papers the Colonies over. “The New Yorkers have betrayed us,. Betrayed us did I say? Nay, they have sold us!” Names of other importers were posted on tavern walls with reminders to businessmen to refuse them service. Bitter jokes were even told. “What is the difference betwixt an Importer and an Indian? Answer: an Indian drinks Cyder—an Importer drinks the Blood of his Country.”73

Meanwhile, however, supplies began to run low. A large storm two years earlier

had damaged the wharves and many of the ships in the harbors. Corn prices had been

high since 1768. A drought killed all the homegrown crops in Connecticut. “So extreamly

severe has been the Drought in this and many of the neighboring Towns, that…Many

Farmers have already cut up whole Field of Indian corn for Fodder, there being not the

least Prospect of any Ears.” 74

The printer’s needs for imported materials became more and more apparent.

Whereas Watson once inserted his call for specific types of cloth in the back pages of the

Connecticut Courant, he now squished onto the front pages desperate pleas for rags “of any Kind.” In Rhode Island, Southwick inserted a plea on the front page of his Newport

Mercury, begging for “clean LINEN RAGS,” and for his subscribers to settle their accounts with him. Southwick wrote that he found it “very difficult to collect Money fast enough to defray the constant Expense of Paper (which can’t be had [without cash])” and needed “every one of his good Customers to settle their Accounts with him immediately.”75

For the first time since he began his newspaper, Southwick’s printing was good

enough that he could afford to make such entreaties. Smudges and inkblots on his pages

were a thing of the past. It is clear from the existing copies of the Newport Mercury that

Southwick had finally mastered his profession. His skill had slowly improved, and now he was proficient in both the technicalities and philosophical requirements of printing.

And print, he did. He continued his coverage of the non-importation agreement and other patriot causes. He inserted news from around the Colonies, including the erection of a Liberty Pole in New York, and the attacks against importers. He punctuated regular news briefs with tart jabs. “Whilst the principal and most important forts and

Islands belonging to Great-Britain are unguarded and naked, and left to the mercy of our

enemies, there are seven or eight ships of the line station’d at Massachusetts Bay–to

subdue our own subjects.”76

The only member of the English government to escape Watson’s censure was

King George, and he was not alone. Southwick in Rhode Island and Crouch in South

Carolina also could not view George III as an enemy. The printers still laid the blame for

the Colonies’ woes at the feet of Parliament, and Parliament alone. Keeping with this

belief, all three printers continued to use the engraving of the King’s coat of arms in their

nameplates.

Both Southwick and Crouch made a special point of printing the speeches made

by the ministers in England and the replies of the King. Parliament, it was reported,

intended to force the Colonies back to a “sense of lawful authority” and to stop them

from the actions that appeared “calculated to destroy the commercial connection between

them and the mother country.” The King’s responses were reprinted, but were mostly

unsatisfactory. George III often deferred judgment on what should be done to Parliament,

a practice the Colonists found somewhat mindboggling.77

Instead of reacting angrily towards the King for his refusal to address the grievances of the Colonists, the South Carolinians at least seemed to see this as reason to become even angrier at Parliament. Crouch and the readers of the South Carolina

Gazette; and Country Journal could not force themselves to believe that the King himself had forsaken them or thought them rebels. Instead, they still believed evil government ministers had tricked the king. Without the vile schemes promoted by these ministers,

Crouch and the Carolinians had no doubt George III would have long since come rushing to the Colonies’ rescue. The only way such wicked men got consent from the King to tax

the Colonies was by “withholding from the Crown,” information regarding America’s wishes and thereby denying “their Brethren in America, the Enjoyment of the same right, and that in the most ignominious Terms.”78

The thought that the King himself might share in the blame with his ministers seemed too absurd and rebellious for printers Crouch and Southwick. Many Colonists agreed. Along with the patriot toasts such as “The LIBERTY of the PRESS,” “Unanimity to the Colonies to the Latest Posterity,” and “All the Sufferers for the Cause of Liberty,” the people of Charleston drank to “The KING, The QUEEN, PRINCE of WALES, and all the Royal Family” at a local tavern.79

Southwick, too, continued to show his support for the King. Over and over again he printed the appeals of the Colonies to George III in behalf of America. These appeals were full of deference and hope. One ended, “That your Majesty, and your Royal

Descendants, may long and gloriously reign in the hearts of a free and happy people; is the constant and fervent prayer of, Your Majesty’s truly devoted, most dutiful, loyal, and affectionate Subjects.”80

The printers of the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal and the Connecticut

Courant were not as willing to excuse the King. Both newspapers began to question

America’s blind obedience to George III. One article depicted the King as “much puzzled; a fading Rose and a broken Trident lying at his feet.” Another writer boldly addressed the King and asked him why he had allowed such vile ministers in Parliament to take control of his empire:

TO the KING. To what a miserable situation are your affairs reduced, by a gang of the greatest Villians that ever infested any region since the birth of Christ. To you personally we the kingdom bears a proper respect. But the

nation has a right and will complain when this most essential and dearest interests are abused and sacrificed…If the present blundering, ignorant, and infamous set, continue much longer, an idiot may foretell, that the public credit will be destroyed.81

Even the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal and the Connecticut Courant,

however, still laid the blame at the feet of Parliament. Watson partially exonerated the

king in a scathing letter written to British Prime Minister Frederick North, blaming

North, and not the King, for all America’s suffering.

Are you, my Lord, quite void of feeling? Have you no warm blood that flows around your heart, that gives your frame a thrilling soft sensation, and makes your bosom glow with affection ornamental to man as a social creature? For shame, my Lord, however wrong you act you must know better.82

News of the Townshend Duty’s repeal came to the Colonies in October 1770. It

was not, however, met with the same happy excitement inspired by the repeal of the

Stamp Act. The duties had not been entirely repealed—the tax on tea remained intact. In

Hartford, the Connecticut Courant’s Watson greeted the news with a somber piece insisting that the non-importation agreement would have been completely successful, had the Colonies just been able to hold out a little longer. 83

At this point, the Colonies entered a period of relative calm. For a few brief

months, little stirred up the Americans. Two weeks after the announcement of the end of

the Townshend Duties, Watson tentatively printed one edition of the Connecticut

Courant with the inclusion of the King’s arms in its masthead once more, as if to test for

political backlash. Whether or not the printer received any letters concerning the change

is unknown. If he did receive them, they were not published. 84

By all accounts, there were more important things on the minds of the Colonists

than Watson’s choice of masthead engravings. Things settled back into the steady rhythm

of life, and with it came the ordinary concerns of every-day living. There was news of

weddings and funerals. A “very malignant putrid fever” killed nearly 150 children in

Rhode Island. In Williamsburgh, Virginia, a hail storm “ruined many fields of wheat, and

greatly damaged the young corn in several countries.” The same storm destroyed several

houses and plantations, leaving “windows broke to pieces by the hail stones which were

remarkably large.” Another storm hit Boston with hail “as big as bullets, and destroyed

several fields of corn and rye; and it is said it lay on the ground seven inches deep till

next morning.” Albany’s corn, wheat, houses, trees and barns were destroyed by four and

a half pound chunks of ice that fell as hail from the sky. The storm also killed some

livestock and “wounded others in so many parts of the Bodies that they appeared as if

bathed in Blood.” In South Carolina, a shipload of corn sent from New York was lost at

sea. In Rhode Island, horses and sheep were struck by lightning.85

Even more disturbing news drifted through the Colonies. Rumors that a war

between England and Spain would “commence in 15 days” circulated throughout the

cities. Worse still, “It is the opinion of all the politicians, that if hostilities are commenced

between Great Britain and Spain, America will be the grand scene of the war.”86

Two weeks after the first hint of war with Spain, Watson reinserted the King’s

arms into the masthead of the Connecticut Courant. The impending war demanded a

show of unity. The printer was unwilling, however, to let the war cloud his ideals. The first edition with the arms began with a front-page article condemning Parliament. “The

whole frame of Administration is corrupt. It is a farce to call the P---t a compleat &

adequate representation of the people.”87

Watson’s fidelity to the Crown did not last long. Only a month later, the

Connecticut Courant started questioning the actions of the King. George III’s competency as ruler and the Colonists’ duty to him were hotly debated in the editions of the Connecticut Courant. “It is not fit to say to a King thou art wicked. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people,” writer A.B. quoted from the Old

Testament. Amicus Bonorum Magistratuum retorted in the next edition, “this is all namely, that thou shalt not speak ‘evil,’ that is, ‘falsely,’ and my bible no where, as I can find, says, ‘thou shalt not speak truth of the ruler, of thy people.” Watson sided against the King, and removed the King’s arms engraving from the masthead of his newspaper

once more.88

In Rhode Island, Southwick’s financial situation had become truly desperate. He made necessary adjustments, including cutting the Newport Mercury down to half its usual size to save on paper. Again, he begged for help from his readers, pleading for them

“to discharge their Accounts immediately, that the Printer may be enabled to pay for the

Paper he is indebted for and procure more.” By August of 1771, Southwick had created a bordered block of text easily inserted into his newspaper that “earnestly” begged for his subscribers to “make immediate payment.”89

The lack of available paper forced Southwick to reduce at least two editions so

drastically that the typical engraving of the king’s arms was necessarily deleted to make

room for news items. The printer removed the newspaper’s motto, namely, “Undaunted

by TYRANTS,----We’ll DIE or be FREE,” entirely. It is possible that this lack of money

and room in his newspaper, coupled with a lack of any new uprisings against England,

prompted the printer to remove the “UNDAUNTED by TYRANTS” motto that had

graced his front page for so many months.90

Months passed, then years. Without any new crisis to unify the Colonies,

controversial news gave way in the patriot newspapers to humdrum goings-on. Edes and

Gill in Boston did their best to keep passions high against the taxed tea, but their efforts

were mostly unsuccessful. The other patriot printers were lulled into a peaceful state.

Southwick printed as usual, and included an engraving of the King’s arms at the top of

the Newport Mercury’s front page. He also used the King’s arms engraving to dignify

many of his other commissioned printing projects, such as a collection of the laws of

Rhode Island. Watson, likewise, continued to print each edition of the Connecticut

Courant with an engraving of the king’s arms. In South Carolina, Crouch seemed

confident the trouble with England had ended. He purchased two extra engravings of the

King’s arms and regularly interchanged them in the South Carolina Gazette; and Country

Journal with the one he already owned.91

But the Bostonians would not allow America to remain dormant for long. When a

shipment of taxed tea arrived in Boston Harbor from the East India Company in England,

the Sons of Liberty could not risk it being landed and consumed by the people of

Massachusetts. On December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians and

boarded the tea ship, then hauled out the crates of tea, “first cutting and splitting the

chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water,”

and then dumped the crates into the harbor.92

Most Colonists believed the Tea Party had crossed the line, and Parliament agreed. It was one thing to protest and write petitions, but no one had ever dared destroy privately owned goods. Rather than allow the Colonies to issue judgment on Boston themselves, the English government stepped in. As punishment for the city’s rebellion,

Parliament ordered a blockade of Boston harbor and forbade all trade by land in or out of the city.

The Colonies responded instantly. They had not approved of the Bostonian’s actions, but they disliked Parliament’s reaction even less. One writer called the act “rash, impolite, and vindictive.” He continued, claiming that the act was “proof of ministerial madness.” Across the Colonies, people viewed “the subjugation of Boston, as in fact it is,

the enslaving of the whole continent.”93

For years, Southwick’s Newport Mercury was known for logical reasoning and

well thought out arguments. No longer. The authors now gracing the pages of the

newspaper were rash, emotional, and not above shamelessly attempting to guilt readers into compliance. “Don’t suffer their detestable tax to be landed… For if you do, the devil will immediately enter into you, and you will instantly become a traitor to your country and natural relations and acquaintances.”94

No more would passivity do. “The time is now come when every true friend of liberty should cast in his mite to defend it,” wrote one contributor. Occasionally,

Southwick inserted warnings to those opposed to the patriots’ actions. One man, who had suggested that “the East India company’s tea might be introduced into this Colony with safety, and that he would insure it from danger” was informed of the hatred inspired by his actions within the pages of the Newport Mercury. “It is the opinion of LEGION, that

no person who endeavours to disseminate principles in such direct opposition to truth, and the true interest of the people of the Colony of Rhode-Island, deserves the lowest place in their midst. –We advise him, and some others, to be cautious. We are MANY.”95

Southwick’s defiance earned him a place in the inner circle of Rhode Island revolutionaries. By early 1774, he was the preferred printer of these men. He printed their notices, speeches, and the resolves of rebel meetings. The printer and the revolutionaries agreed “that a virtuous and steady opposition to this ministerial plan of governing

America, is absolutely necessary to preserve even the shadow of Liberty,” and that anyone opposed to the measures adopted by the patriots should be considered “an enemy to his country.”96

Southwick and the rebel leaders in Rhode Island stopped short of outright

rebellion, however. The people of America, including the Rhode Islanders, were not yet

ready to revolt and declare independence from their mother country. Southwick believed

in the patriot cause, but was wary of anything that might permanently alienate the British

government from America. As proof of his loyalty, he once again upgraded the engraving

of the King’s arms in the nameplate of the Newport Mercury.

The new cut was large and detailed, by far the most expensive and professional of any that had yet appeared in the Newport Mercury. The printer’s choice of design cannot be coincidental. For the first time since opening his shop, Southwick was financially

secure. The extra work brought in by patriot leaders gave the printer more than enough

money to purchase a different masthead design. Rather than commission a new, more

American engraving, he chose to buy a more detailed cut of the King’s arms. This

decision strongly shows Southwick remained loyal to George III, even as he helped

patriot leaders oppose Parliament. That he paid for the new engraving with the patriot’s money suggests he saw no conflict of interest. Southwick was not yet ready for revolution.97

At the same time Southwick’s business became successful in Rhode Island,

Crouch’s printing shop in South Carolina began to fail. Advertisements hinting at

Crouch’s financial distress trickled into the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal as early as January 11, 1774. “TO BE LET, and may be entered on immediately, The

BACK STORE and CELLAR, adjoining my PRINTING-OFFICE, in Gadsden’s Alley.

Apply to CHARLES CROUCH.” “The Subscriber earnestly intreats the Favour of all

Persons any Ways indebted to him to make Payment by the 25th of March next, for after that Day all Accounts unpaid will be sued for without further Notice, though it will be much against his inclination, but his Affairs require his pursuing such Measures.

CHARLES CROUCH.” “TO BE LET…The chief Part of the HOUSE in which I now live, with the Kitchen, &c., and the Back Store and Cellar, in Gadsden’s Alley, adjoining my Printing Office. Apply to CHARLES CROUCH.”98

The reason behind these desperate cries for money quickly became apparent.

Crouch was ill. “As I intend to leave the Province in May next,” he wrote in April, “for the Benefit of my Health, I request the Favour of all Persons anyways indebted to me, to make Payment by the First of said Month; for after that Day, I shall put my Books of

Accounts, &c into the Hands of JOHN TROUP... in order to be recovered.” According to

Charleston’s 1794 directory, Troup was a prominent lawyer. This was a desperate measure for any Colonial printer. Most printers struggled to collect subscription fees from their readers, but Crouch was one of the very few who ever resorted to bringing suit

against those with delinquent payments. Crouch’s financial situation must have been dire indeed.99

On May 3, Crouch left a parting note for his readers at the top of the South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal. He would be back in November, hopefully cured

of his illness, but assured his readers, “my Friends in particular,” that “my Business will

be carried on in my Absence, by Persons obtained for that Purpose;” and plead with the public to continue to patronize his business. A month later, he sold his shop and moved his business to a cheaper location in Charleston.100

The unsettled financial future of the printing business, Crouch’s illness, and his absence from the shop did nothing to temper the South Carolina Gazette; and Country

Journal’s patriotic zeal. It was not a time for half-heartedness. Even during Crouch’s absence, the newspaper did not fence sit. “There is no medium which can be adopted with honour or safety on either side,” the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal asserted in April. “There is no medium left. The Parliament must either repeal the Tea

Act… or else they must address his Majesty to support it with all that resolution and severity that is necessary to produce the satisfactory obedience.” Bitterness towards the

English Parliament intensified, flamed on by letters from England. “What will be done with America, it is impossible to conjecture,” one writer stated. “Coercive measures of some kind, will, it is highly probable, be adopted. Boston will receive particular marks of resentment. People here are greatly exasperated…”101

Writers from London, too, saw that the time for wishy-washy behavior had come

to an end. One writer called for an army to be sent to America immediately. Others

blamed the current events on the follies of the past. “Our repealing the Stamp-Act had

made the Americans think we had no right to tax them, and in a great measure was the cause of our present misfortunes.” Others called for “every means in their [Parliament’s] power to see the laws duly executed in America, &c.,” calling the actions of the

Americans “rebellious.”102

These harsh words from America’s fellow subjects only added to the fury the

South Carolinians felt towards Parliament. The continual acts to tax the Colonies

combined with the shutting up of Boston harbor incensed the writers of The South

Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal as nothing yet had done. News of the Boston Port

Act hit the press on May 31, 1774. Outrage was nearly instantaneous. In the very next

edition, writers from across America voiced their resentment in its pages.

It appears that the drift of Administration and their good friends in England, is, to divide the union of the American Colonies… But let us not be dismayed, let us persevere to the end, and resolve to yield our lives and fortunes before we will submit to the iron yoke of tyranny! And let this sacred truth, be borne in the mind of EVERY AMERICAN, ‘By UNITING WE STAND, by DIVIDING WE FALL!

Another writer, confirming the Colonies’ unity, asserted, “the sense of the people of

America goes with the people of Boston.”103

What hope the Colonies had left was resolutely pinned on the King. Even though

the “present Ministry, being instigated by the DEVIL, are led on by their own wicked and

corrupt hearts,” most Americans still hoped to be governed and “supported by our

rightful Sovereign, whose person we greatly revere, whose government, while duly

administered, we are ready with our lives or properties to support.” The Colonists celebrated the King’s 36th birthday in June by ringing bells, firing cannons, and a parade,

“appearing under Arms, &c. and other Demonstrations of Joy and Loyalty.”104

Still, the Colonies’ relationship with the King was becoming strained. One writer

put the sentiments of the Colonies best:

STATE of POLITICAL STOCES this day at two o’clock: Royal Assurance----high. Patriotism----below par. Justice to America----lost. Corruption----spree. Magna Charta----reduced 1-half.105

By the early months of 1774, the idea of independence slowly and quietly found its ways into the pages of the Newport Mercury. Most Rhode Islanders, like the town of

Providence, were “willing, and even desirous, of a continuance of connexion between the

Colonies and Britain,” but only “if it may be had upon terms in any measure equal.” A few brave writers boldly began to challenge the King’s authority. “You, my dear

American brethren, who have any true notion of that great blessing which the King of

Kings has, in his infinite goodness, been pleased to bestow upon you and your posterity, namely, the great blessing of freedom; don’t set light by it, neither be afraid; for no King on earth has a right to rob you of it.”106

Southwick, though he still printed under the symbol of the King’s arms, began to lose faith in George III. Was not liberty, after all, more important than loyalty to an

uncaring Crown? “The people that’s born free are not willing to be slaves; neither are

they afraid, for once they begin the glorious work of freedom in earnest, those sons of

Belial, who have …contrived the ruin of millions, will be treated as they deserve, though

my pen is not able to express the horror of that day.” Southwick could not approve of the

actions of the King. Even if George III did not take an active part in the oppression of the

Colonies, he certainly had done nothing to keep Parliament from doing so. Southwick

asked himself, “Is the present system, which the British administration have adopted for the government of the Colonies, a righteous government? Or is it tyranny?”107

In the fall of 1774, each of the Colonies sent delegates to the First Continental

Congress to decide America’s next move. Something, after all, had to be done. It appeared impossible that relief would come if the Colonies did not fight for it themselves:

The present Parliament seems to be the great battering Ram, designed to beat down the already crumbled Walls of British Freedom. Like the Seven Seals in St. John’s Revelation, every new Act of Parliament astonishes us with some Prodigy more horrible than the former.108

A few Colonials hoped for the King’s intervention, but only half-heartedly. In a final effort, the Continental Congress wrote George III one last petition asking for deliverance. “To a sovereign, who ‘glories in the name of Briton,’ the bare recital of these acts must, we presume, justify the loyal subjects who fly to the feet of his throne and implore his clemency for protection against them.”109

Southwick printed the extracts and votes of the Congress for Rhode Island’s perusal. It was the first official document to come from his press that did not include an engraving of the king’s coat of arms. This omission suggests that Southwick already thought of the American Continental Congress and the British government as two separate entities. In December 1774, he continued with his duties as printer to the Rhode

Island General Assembly, publishing each copy of the proceedings of the General

Assembly with an engraving of the king’s arms.110

Officially speaking, Congress and the printers all hoped for reconciliation with the

King. And yet, as often as both groups dubbed themselves, “his Majesty’s most loyal subjects,” an obvious and clear note of derision was found in their writings. Neither the

printers nor Congress were willing to reconcile without their demands being met. It is clear that Southwick, at least, agreed whole heartedly when the delegates of Congress

resolved, “That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property; and they have never ceded

to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without consent.”111

While the printers firmly agreed with the resolves of the Continental Congress, they did not put much real faith in them. The contributors to the Newport Mercury foresaw trouble on the horizon. Many were still angered by the continued stationing of troops in American cities. One correspondent wrote that “a Spanish War is now inevitable, in consequence of which, the Troops will be more honorably employed, than dragooning their fellow-subjects into a compliance to the present Ministerial Plan of

Slavery.”112

The Americans were steeling themselves for conflict with England. Rumors

spread throughout Charleston that Britain was prepared to force the Colonies into

submission. “Orders, it is whispered, have been given, or will be in a few days, that no

fire arms, swords, &c., be permitted to be exported from hence to America, or

elsewhere…” wrote a London correspondent. It was hardly frightening news, as such acts

would “not affect the Americans, for they have plenty of these instruments of death

already.” Far more disconcerting were the regular reports of ships sailing from England

with soldiers for cargo. “Engaged in the Oppression of America at this Time, there are 25

Men of War, and 3476 Seamen. Who would have thought that so many brave Englishmen

should ever have been engaged in the Hangman’s Office?”113

When the British troops arrived, they would not be the only army on the

American continent. A Colonial army formed in preparation for war. Crouch, Watson,

and Southwick reported that both sides of the conflict were preparing for battle. Snippets of news from around the Colonies all told the same story: small arms had been ordered and smuggled in to the country, young boys and old men had bravely enrolled themselves in town militias, American militiamen stood guard during town meetings voting to purchase “Fire-Arms, with Bayonets and other Implements of War.” One town boasted of

“a general muster…between two and three thousand determined, able bodied men, well equipped for the defence of their oppressed, insulted country, and nobly resolved to die or be free.” By the end of February, Southwick asserted, “the Independent companies meet almost every day, and will soon be equal to any regulars in the King’s dominion.”114

In lieu of any opportunity to fight the British soldiers already in the Colonies, who were put under strict orders not to engage with civilians after the Boston Massacre, the

Colonial militias practiced their skills on anyone found supporting the British government. Suspected tories were often abused, and occasionally tarred and feathered.

One militia gave a Tory who refused to “renounce his wicked principles” a “new coat” of

“fish gurry,” then intimidated him into claiming he “despised, and hated, any real Tory as much as he did a highway-robber, or the devil, their principles and practices being exactly similar, and tending to the same end, viz. that of plundering and enslaving mankind.”115

By early 1775, Southwick gave up on the Crown and prepared for a break from

Britain. “The general talk now,” Southwick reported happily, “was about a separation of

the Colonies from Great Britain.” On February 20, 1775, the printer threw out all

pretense of a lasting connection between Britain and the Colonies by removing for good

the engraving of the King’s arms from his masthead. A few weeks later, Southwick put in

words what he had already shown by removing his masthead engraving: disenchantment with the King. In a rare essay written by the printer himself, Southwick reminded his readers that a King’s power should be employed solely for the “freedom and happiness” of the people, and that the present King had failed to uphold his duty. The printer gave his “hearty consent” to any who disagreed with this position to drop his newspaper, and wished all those who still hoped for a reconciliation with England “ a speedy reformation; not that the friends to liberty want your strength and interest on their side, but for your own future happiness.”116

No British symbol ever topped the front page of the Newport Mercury again.

Southwick’s support of the King had finally ended. His belief in the American cause increased so much that when the British troops invaded Newport the following year,

Southwick actually “buried his press and types in the garden in the rear of the old Kilburn

House, in Broad Street,” rather than surrender them to the soldiers.117

Watson and his Connecticut Courant were not far behind Southwick in casting off all semblances of loyalty to England, but the change seemed to hurt Watson more than it had the Rhode Island printer. In the final edition of the Connecticut Courant containing the King’s arms, the Whigs made a final, heart-wrenching plea to King George III.

Watson, who for so long defended the King, must have felt similar sentiments when he published this address to the Sovereign:

How long, generous sir, shall we, thy loving subjects, complain that thou hast turned a deaf ear to our petitions? How long shall we deplore the loss of thy affectionate regard? How long, with grief must we behold thee, as it were, utterly estranged from all the sincere friends and firm supporters of this illustrious house?118

The evidence suggests that Watson finally lost faith in the King. The Connecticut

Courant, which had for so long clung to the Crown, even while despising the legislation

of Parliament, was disenchanted at last. A King who refused to stop tyranny, after all, is

nothing better than a tyrant himself. The arms were removed from the masthead of the

Connecticut Courant on September 11, 1775 and were never replaced. Watson

announced his readiness for the Declaration of Independence, which his paper would

later become the first in America to print.119

In South Carolina, Crouch had returned tentatively to his presses, despite the fact

that his illness had not ended. While his loyalty to the Crown was fading, the printer still

clung to the small hope that the King would wake up from the spell placed on him by

Parliament and rush to the aid of the Colonies. In an address specifically written to the

King, Crouch reminded George III of the “Gratitude and Affection” the people of the

Colonies had felt when he ascended the thrown. “Our shouts of Joy made all Europe envy

us our Sovereign.” The writer went on to hope that the awful “Change which soon

succeeded, and fatally continued since,” would soon be over.120

Symbolically speaking, Crouch remained on the fence. Although the printer

continued to publish an engraving of the King’s arms in his newspaper’s masthead, a

change in his other engravings began in spring of 1775. Crouch replaced the small

engraving of the King’s arms that had once designated official proclamations, included

those made by the King, with an engraving of a post rider carrying the Gazette. The

substitution shows Crouch’s first small step towards renouncing the Crown.121

Even Crouch saw the time for reconciliation had ended. By spring 1775, America and Britain entered a state of open warfare. On April 19, more than 700 British regulars

and a small battalion of American militia, met in the small town square of Lexington,

Massachusetts. The troops fired shots just as the sun came up that day, marking the

official beginning of the Revolutionary War.

Crouch printed news of the battle in an Extraordinary edition, which contained no

engraving. Later, he treated news of the Battles of Concord and Bunker Hill the same

way. The printer took the news of the war badly, and laid the weight of his

disappointment at the foot of the King. “Thus, through the sanguinary Measures of a

wicked Ministry …has commenced the American Civil war.” When the final petition sent

by the American Continental Congress to George III had been ignored, “huddled into

both houses amongst a bundle of American papers, and there neglected,” Crouch’s hope

ceased. The printer saw only one option left for the Colonies:

King George the third adieu! No more shall we cry to you for protection! No more shall we bleed in defense of you—your breach of covenant! Your violation of faith! Your turning a deaf ear to our cries of justice, for covenanted protection, salvation from the oppressive, tyrannical and bloody measures of the British Parliament, and putting a sanction upon all their measures to enslave and oppress us, have DISSOLVED due ALLEGIANCE to your crown and government!

The printer’s only remaining desire was that the conflict would “speedily terminate in a full Restoration of our Liberties,” a wish he believed should be the “earnest Desire of every real Friend to Great Britain and America.”122

Whether or not Crouch planned to say farewell to his king’s arms engraving will

never be known. The final edition of the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal

was printed shortly after this declaration was made, still with the royal engraving in its

masthead. On August 1, 1775, Crouch closed the doors of his printing shop due to a lack

of money and failing health. He died shortly thereafter.123

Crouch, Edes and Gill, Watson, Southwick, and their newspapers unarguably fought for American rights from the time of the Stamp Act forward. The heated words continually published on their presses, however, can easily give the false impression that these printers wanted a break from England as early as 1765. Their choices in masthead engravings prove this notion incorrect. That these four newspapers, which so often contained blistering essays against the English government, displayed such blatantly

British symbols in their mastheads suggests the printer’s feelings towards their homeland did not change overnight. Faith in King George III proved particularly resilient. The insertion, reinsertion, and deletion of British symbols show that the printers were not always “devoted…wholeheartedly to colonial freedom.” The words they printed made clear their constant willingness to fight against injustice, but the engravings they used in their newspaper’s mastheads show that an evolution of thought was necessary before these patriot printers fought for American independence.124

Chapter 4

Newspapers that Began Loyal

The South Carolina air was hot and humid. Peter Timothy stood at his post, high

atop St. Michael’s Church, as he had for countless days and weeks. From his viewpoint

beside the church’s steeple, Timothy had seen all the movements of the British fleet as

they approached the town of Charleston in 1780. He watched as British ships opened fire

for the first time on the city on March 12, sending cannonballs ripping through buildings

and ships. There had not been much good news since then, and there was none today.

From his perch, Timothy saw over thirty British flatboats “skulking in the marsh” in

Wappoo Cut, near the Ashley River. The soldiers worked busily, and Timothy guessed they were preparing to move their boats up the river, towards the city. Charleston’s commander, General Benjamin Lincoln, agreed with this assessment when Timothy made his report that night. The fight for Charleston could not be far away.1

Under the cover of darkness that night, the British soldiers muffled their oars and

paddled their way across the Ashley. By dawn, they reached the opposite bank, landing at

a small strip of land called Fuller’s plantation. Within a few days, the British surrounded

Charleston, laying siege to the city. Timothy fought along side the American troops as

they attempted to beat back the army, but it was no use. Their numbers were too few, and

once the British soldiers crossed the riverbank, there was little hope. Two months of

bitter fighting and dwindling supplies later, Lincoln was forced to surrender the city to

the British.2

The British troops took Timothy and 28 other leading Charleston patriots

prisoner. The British had good reason to include Timothy in this group of South Carolina rebels. He had been a delegate to the provincial congress, and clerk to the General

Assembly. Thomas called him a “decided and active friend of his country,”and the legendary revolutionist Samuel Adams called him friend. More important, Timothy was the printer of the ferociously revolutionary South Carolina Gazette, which Lieutenant

Governor William Bull, Jr. bitingly called “the conduit Pipe” for “principles…imbibed & propagated from Boston and Rhode Island.” For half a decade, Timothy had been a dangerous foe of the “Enemies to Liberty.”3

The printer had not always been such an ardent supporter of the American cause.

In fact, when trouble with England began in 1765, Timothy was hesitant to openly

support the American cause. His conversion to patriotic principles was a long, indecisive

process. Eventually, he became one of the fiercest of all patriot printers, but not before he

suffered many losses of heart.

Timothy never completely shied away from conflict in the pages of his South

Carolina Gazette. His father, Lewis Timothee, from whom Peter Timothy inherited the

Gazette, taught his son that the press was an important check on government, and that

when the liberty of the press was “attack’d, abridged, or taken away,” the result was

“Slavery and Ruin.” By the time of the Stamp Act, Timothy had already been imprisoned

at least once for printing insubordinate essays.4

He believed in the freedom of the press, but he also believed in loyalty to the

English government. By 1765, the South Carolina Gazette had been printed under the

banner of the King’s arms for over a decade. The engravings of this design differed from

time to time. The first engraving inserted was small, roughly 2 inches wide by 1 inch

high. The second, wider cut about four inches wide by 1 inch high appearing in 1759, and

another wide cut appeared in 1768. Within these variations, the basic symbol always

remained the same—the King’s arms.

When Parliament announced the Stamp Act, Timothy filled the South Carolina

Gazette’s pages with essays expounding the importance of a free press and the dangers of

arbitrary and tyrannical power exercised by the government. The newspaper accused

government leaders of planning to use the tax money for “bribery and corruption.” The

“evils” Timothy supposed Parliament intended to execute against the Americans were

“too notorious to escape general observation, and too atrocious to be palliated.”5

Yet, for all his talk, Timothy was then quite comfortably employed as Secretary to the Post Master General for the Southern District of North America, a governmental position awarded him for his skill as a printer and for his loyalty to the Crown. The position afforded him prestige and many financial benefits, all of which the printer loathed to give up.

Despite Timothy’s feelings towards “Grenville’s hellish Idea of the Stamp-Act,” the printer faced a difficult decision. If he flaunted the tax outright and continued to print his newspaper without stamps, as many other printers chose to do, Timothy risked alienating the King and losing his position with the imperial post office. On the other hand, if he printed with stamps, the public would almost certainly condemn him as a hypocrite and a traitor.6

In an effort to avoid both situations, Timothy suspended publication of the

Gazette once the Stamp Act took effect. In the final newspaper before suspension,

published on the eve of the Stamp Act, Timothy showed his displeasure by lining the

columns of the South Carolina Gazette with heavy, black rules. A quick glance at the

paper suggests the newspaper was in mourning, but the content Timothy chose to include suggests the printer had a more temperate mindset than many. The essays included in this edition make it clear that Timothy did not consider violence or outright defiance an

effective recourse. He quoted Governor Bernard of Massachusetts, rhetorically asking the

people whether their late actions were “consistent with the dutiful, loyal, and humble”

subjects they claimed to be. The article also asks if the people truly believed their unruly

opposition was the best course of action. “Will the denying the power and authority of the

king and parliament, be the proper means to obtain their favour? If the parliament should

be disposed to repeal this act, will they probably do it whilst there subsists a forcible

opposition to the execution of it?”7

Timothy’s decision to maintain the middle road cost him dearly. The people of

Charleston were furious. They wanted a strong-willed printer who would stand up for

their rights, not cower in a corner until the fight was over. In a letter to Benjamin

Franklin, Timothy described himself as “confused” and with a “perplexed Head,” while

he dealt with the backlash of his decision to not defy the Stamp Act. He wrote that he

found himself:

the most popular reduced to the most unpopular Man in the Province; by taking upon me a Place in the Post-Office at the Time of the Stamp-Act, discontinuing Printing, while its Operation was in Suspence; and declining to direct, support, and engage in the most violent opposition.8

In fact, the city of Charleston was so “exasperated” with Timothy for his inaction,

they took “every Step to injure, and set up [another printer] against” him, providing this

new printer with a shop, types, and a press. To add insult to injury, the people of

Charleston chose Timothy’s brother-in-law and one time apprentice, Charles Crouch, as

discussed in the previous chapter. Timothy despised Crouch, calling him a “worthless

fellow.” Timothy’s hatred doubled now that the citizens of Charleston supported the new

printer “with their utmost Zeal and Interest.”9

Even those who still patronized the South Carolina Gazette would not let

Timothy quickly forget his decision to suspend publication. When Timothy tried to

correct his error by printing news of Charleston’s celebration when Parliament repealed

the Stamp Act, a reader berated the printer and all those like him for their cowardice:

…they shrunk within their own shells at every supposed danger…They who had accused us of Rebellion rejoiced most…They stuck up tallow in their windows, and shewed their zeal for liberty at the expense of a few farthing candles. Strange! That they should light their houses for the support of REBELLION!10

The printer would not make the same mistake again. Timothy knew only one course of action was left for him. In his own words, he must “quit the Post-Office when some other Occasion offers to distinguish myself in the Cause of America.” From that point forward, Timothy looked for opportunities to prove himself a patriot. After the

Townsend Acts were passed in 1767, he began printing articles strongly voiced against importation. “You cannot expect the merchants will begin this matter themselves,” one writer ranted. “Oblige them to do it, by declaring you will deal with none that do import extra articles.” Names of those in Charleston who imported British goods were published and criticized. Despite his best efforts, however, Timothy still struggled to convince his readers he was firm in the fight against Parliament.11

In Philadelphia, meanwhile, another newspaper was struggling to pinpoint its

loyalties. In 1767, patriot printer William Goddard moved to Pennsylvania and struck up

an unusual partnership with two wealthy Tory Philadelphians, Joseph Galloway and

Thomas Wharton. A more unlikely union is hard to imagine. Goddard had previously

been employed as a printer in Rhode Island, where he had “zealously defended the rights

of the Colonies” during the time of the Stamp Act. Wharton was merely a wealthy

merchant whose political views were generally unknown. Galloway was a legislator who

had written a series of letters in favor of the Stamp Act.12

If Goddard harbored misgivings at the beginning of this improbable partnership, his new silent partners quickly swept them away with well-turned phrases and pretty compliments. Galloway and Wharton, who acted as financial backers to Goddard, promised the printer they were “determined to have a press that would ‘faithfully serve the public.’” Together, they assured him, they could make their newspaper, the

Pennsylvania Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser, the best in all the Colonies.13

All in all, the future of the Pennsylvania Chronicle must have seemed bright to the 26-year-old printer. His partners provided ample means for him to create the newspaper of his dreams. Instead of settling for the Colonies’ standard newspaper size,

Goddard modeled his Pennsylvania Chronicle after the London Chronicle. Larger than most Colonial newspapers by a whole column, the Pennsylvania Chronicle was the largest scaled paper ever printed in early America. Expecting success, he hired subscription agents in Canada, New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, the West Indies, and London.14

To further the newspaper’s grand image, Goddard adorned the first edition of the

Chronicle with an elaborate, large engraving of the King’s arms. The engraving is printed at approximately three inches wide by two inches tall and separates the name of the paper. It is easily the grandest of all the arms engravings used by any Colonial printer.

It does not appear that Goddard was pressured by his partners to use this engraving in the nameplate, since his last newspaper in Providence also used a cut of the

King’s arms. It also does not appear that money or availability influenced his decision, as the printer asked his partners to purchase a large collection of engravings for use in the newspaper, which they did. Cuts of horses, ships, cattle, men walking, a two headed eagle, sickles, beehives, an ornate clock, and a heart were all used regularly throughout this publication. The logical conclusion is that Goddard chose to print every edition under a banner including the King’s arms as a matter of personal preference and loyalty to the Crown.

By the newspaper’s second edition, Goddard was already advertising for another journeyman. The paper’s subscription numbers began at 700 and quickly rose to over

1,000. The magnitude of this achievement is best understood when it is considered that the average newspaper in the pre-Revolution Colonies had a circulation of about 500 papers. The printer must have been proud when he inserted the following advertisement in his April 17, 1767 edition:

The CHRONICLE…circulates in all the English Colonies on the Continent, the West Indies, and the principal Cities in Great Britain and Ireland…without just Imputation of Arrogance, it may boast of having a greater Number than any other Paper in America…15

While outwardly the Pennsylvania Chronicle was wildly successful, its

infrastructure had already begun to crumble. To say the inner workings of the partnership

behind the Pennsylvania Chronicle were unstable is an understatement. It quickly became clear that Wharton and Galloway established the paper not to serve the public, but to

propagate their own views. The three partners constantly bickered over what should and

should not be included in the newspaper. Wharton and Galloway consistently demanded

Tory articles be published in the Pennsylvania Chronicle. At their insistence and against

Goddard’s will, all news regarding the Townshend Duties was tinted with a pro-British

viewpoint.

Goddard despised his partners and their politics. As early as June 22, 1767,

Goddard proposed the partnership be discontinued after his partners berated him for

printing a pro-patriot letter. Later, he wrote,

It gave me the most painful sensations to find myself deeply connected with men who were enemies to their country, and as such obnoxious to many worthy characters who wished to be my friends’ and I deplored that I had been so misled as to form such an unnatural alliance, as I thereby lost the good-will of those whom, of all mankind, I respected, and whose friendship I should have cultivated.16

During the first few months, Goddard fought to more or less maintain balanced

news coverage, but the Pennsylvania Chronicle remained overrun with solidly Tory essays, most of which Galloway and Wharton wrote under pseudonyms. The pair forced

Goddard to publish one essay, submitted under the name Lex Talionis, that was so inflammatory and repulsive to the American cause that even the printer’s mother, who herself was in the publishing trade, wrote to Goddard, worried for his safety:

It is with aching heart and trembling hand I attempt to write, but hardly able, for the great concern and anxious

fears the fight of your late Chronicles gave me, to find you involved deeper and deeper in an unhappy uncomfortable situation. In your calm hours of reflection, you must see the impropriety of publishing such pieces as Lex Talionis…17

Goddard hardly needed the reminder. Printing the Lex Talionis letter and all other

Tory writings repulsed to him. He fought to keep such items out of the Chronicle, but

with little success. Whenever he committed the “great crime of differing from [his

partners] in opinion respecting some particular matters, and for refusing, or rather

neglecting, to publish” invective essays, he was “severely censured.”18

When Galloway wrote a pro-British piece and demanded it be printed and signed

in Goddard’s name, the printer refused outright. He wrote his partners a scathing letter,

wishing he had “never applied” to them for help in starting his newspaper. “I am

persuaded that in that case, I should have had as many or more subscribers for the

[Pennsylvania] Chronicle than I now have. I am sure I should have had much fewer enemies.”19

It was not long afterwards that Goddard defied his partners publically by printing the most inflammatory Whig writings ever before written in the Colonies—the instantly famous Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer. The letters presented the Colonies with a rational argument for why the Townshend Duties were illegal, thereby infuriating those who were trying to convince the people to submit to the new law, including Goddard’s partners. The printer was the first to publish the series of essays in a set of special editions to the Pennsylvania Chronicle. Goddard, along with the Letters, became famous overnight. Whig papers around the Colonies scrambled desperately to obtain early copies of the Pennsylvania Chronicle so they too could publish the popular letters.

100

Galloway and Wharton were not impressed. In fact, they were livid. They were

“angry, they fretted, they swore and affirmed, that they [the Letters from a Farmer] were

too inflammatory for this latitude.” Galloway called them “damned ridiculous! Meer

fluff! Fustian! Altogether stupid and inconsistent!” Goddard remembered Wharton’s

reaction with sarcasm and bitterness: “The very sagacious and deep read Mr. Wharton,

with a great deal of solemn dump and grimace in his look, signified that ‘Friend

Goddard’ was very imprudent in introducing such pieces into OUR Chronicle, at such a

time.” The pair warned Goddard that if he continued to “go on head-long against the

interest of my BENEFACTORS,” he would suffer severe consequences.20

Despite Galloway and Wharton’s deep disapproval, Goddard continued to print

the letters, still under the banner of the King’s arms, arguing that “they deserved the

serious attention of all North-America.” Even when Galloway “ridiculed” the printer’s

ideas about “liberty and the rights of mankind” and swore the “people in America were

mad” and “knew not what they wanted,” Goddard remained firm.21

During the twelve weeks the Farmer’s letters were printed in the Pennsylvania

Chronicle, Goddard began to include solidly Whig entries in his newspaper, including coverage of the Non-importation agreements. Tory and moderate viewpoints were still present, but for the first time the Whig view was consistently voiced along with them.

One writer declared America in a state of “impending ruin” if measures were not taken to unite the Colonies soon.22

And yet, Goddard still was not allowed to print whatever he desired. Essays he

felt were important to the patriot cause were thrown out and Tory propaganda was set in

the press instead. His partners forced him to print articles by Jack White Oak, A Miller, A

101

Countryman, and others who argued violently against the reasoning’s of the Pennsylvania

Farmer. “I found myself obliged to publish them, tho’ I was very averse to it, and was

confident it would terminate in the loss of many good customers, which was really the

case.” Such articles continued to worry Goddard’s friends and family. One wrote, “I

think, Sir, that your determination of devoting your paper to the general and true interest

of America, as well as to the particular advantage of your Colony, is well chosen—but I

am exceedingly fearful that your connexions will cramp you in your noble views.”23

The next few years at the Pennsylvania Chronicle were marked by more disagreements between the partners and clashing views within the newspaper. Goddard insisted on printing more and more news from the patriot perspective, despite his partners attempting to block him every step of the way. By 1769, the partnership had deteriorated into a state of open hatred. Late that year, Galloway and Wharton sold their shares in the newspaper to another Philadelphian printer named Benjamin Towne.

It quickly became clear that Towne was nothing more than a vindictive puppet directed by Goddard’s former partners. Through Towne, the pair continued to manipulate the news included in the Pennsylvania Chronicle. They could not prevent Goddard from printing patriot essays altogether, but they could temper them. Instead of the fiery essays he wanted to publish, Goddard was left to print short, moderate pieces.24

In South Carolina, Timothy had made no firmer stance than Goddard, but for

different reasons. The printer increased the number of patriot essays each year, but was

still unwilling to publish anything that smacked of real disloyalty. Occasionally, Timothy

would publish highly rebellious essays, like a lengthy poem written to his subscribers

102

extolling the virtues of Freedom and America, or essays by English radical John Wilkes,

but these were far and few between.

Timothy’s reluctance to side with the patriots showed through his use of

engravings. Each edition of the South Carolina Gazette was still topped with a cut of the

King’s arms, a tangible reminder of the printer’s continuing loyalty to the George III. The

engraving is present in every edition. The few articles Timothy printed that leaned

heavily toward the patriot view were found only in supplemental editions of the

newspaper, which did not include the King’s arms engraving. It is possible the printer

was attempting to hedge his bets by showing his continuing loyalty to both sides of the

dispute – the Americans in the supplemental editions of the South Carolina Gazette, and the British Crown in regular versions. Timothy’s indecisive stance continued to alienate the citizens of Charleston. His attempts to denounce the Townshend Acts were met with only partial success, and the people continued to support Crouch, his competitor.25

It was not until news of the Boston Massacre reached Charleston and Philadelphia

in April 1770 that Timothy and Goddard truly broke out in defiance against the British

administration. Only a few days after the massacre took place, Goddard printed several

different accounts of the event, including one that accused the soldiers in Boston of

planning the “Violence to the Inhabitants” for days. As if to assert his right to print as he

pleased even more strongly, Goddard included yet another, more detailed account of the

Boston Massacre the next week.26

It was Timothy, however, who went over the top in getting the word out about the

massacre. He lined the account with the same heavy black rules he used in the days of the

Stamp Act and filled the South Carolina Gazette with news from Boston. A design of

103

skulls and crossbones surrounds the first letter on the front page. The Gazette gave a

more detailed account than most other Whig newspapers. All but five paragraphs and

four advertisements contain news of the killings.27

Most telling – and most rebellious – of Timothy’s inclusions, however, was not

found in the text or the engravings. Instead, Timothy printed his most daring statement

above the text, between the words “South Carolina” and “GAZETTE.” In place of the

King’s arms, which usually adorned this spot, Timothy inserted a large box filled in

entirely with black ink. Unlike many printers of his day, Timothy apparently did not feel

it was enough to simply exclude the symbol of British monarchy on this dark occasion. It

was also not enough to simply include the tale under his original banner. This time,

Timothy was determined to make his defiance impossible to miss.

By blackening out the King’s arms, Timothy displayed his anger towards the

British government for allowing such a tragedy to occur.28 Whether the massacre truly upset the printer or whether he simply saw an opportunity to make amends with the people of Charleston is unknown. Either way, the symbolic statement Timothy made by blacking out the King’s arms made his place on the side of the Americans clear once and for all.

Like most Colonists, the chief part of Timothy’s resentment was directed at

Parliament, however, not the king. The next week’s edition was printed with the King’s arms reinserted in the masthead, and the printer began publishing accounts of the

Colony’s pleas to the Crown shortly thereafter. Still, the massacre planted a seed of ill will toward George III in Timothy’s mind. A handful of disillusioned essays questioning the competency of the King crept into the pages of the South Carolina Gazette.

104

We have already in our petition dutifully represented to your Majesty the chief injuries we have sustained. We are unwilling to believe that your Majesty can slight the desires of your people, or be regardless of their affection, and deaf to their complaints; yet their complaints remain unanswered. Their injuries are confirmed.29

Anti-King sentiments also began to seep through the pages of the Pennsylvania

Chronicle. Goddard’s bitter experience with his former partners taught the printer to

consider all those with power in the British realm tyrants, both at home and abroad. After

years of fighting with Galloway and Wharton, Goddard was no longer able to stomach

any Tory ideals, including unwavering loyalty to George III. In Goddard’s mind, the

King’s failure to support the Colonies was even more despicable than Galloway and

Wharton’s broken promise to serve the people. One article in the Pennsylvania Chronicle

accused, “The King, in ascending the throne, hath declared; ‘That he will suffer none of

his…subjects to be oppressed for conscience sake.’ But his subjects are, and have been

oppressed in New England; of which he cannot be ignorant.”30

In late 1770, all connections between Goddard and his partners were finally

broken. The printer celebrated by treating his ever-growing list of subscribers, now at

2,500, to a flood of Whig essays. Extensive discussions on the Non-Importation

Agreement were printed, as were never-ending essays on Liberty. The contributors to the

Pennsylvania Chronicle wrote, “all nations who suffer themselves to be robbed of that

freedom they were born to enjoy, prove they do not deserve so great a blessing.” Those

nations, “whose liberties were delivered down to them, by the blood of their glorious

forefathers, and were secured to them by the wisest and strongest laws, checks, and

regulations,” who allowed themselves to lose those freedoms “justly merit all imaginable

infamy, scorn and detestation.”31

105

Goddard was through printing what others thought important. He was through trusting the British government to hold the Colonies’ rights sacred, and he was done hoping the King would save them. A few short weeks later, the King’s arms were removed from the nameplate of the Pennsylvania Chronicle, never to be replaced.

Goddard’s loyalties could never be questioned again.

The same cannot be said for his fellow printer in South Carolina. In 1772,

Timothy’s patriotic ardor lapsed once again. Since the Townshend Acts were repealed in

1770, very few large events had occurred to spark the former fury of passions created by the Stamp Act or the Boston Massacre, leaving the printer with little inflammatory news to print.

Timothy’s shop was suffering financially. He had been “unfortunate” and, having never set “Value upon Money,” found himself in a difficult position. He wrote to

Benjamin Franklin that he “suffered, by never being lukewarm in any Cause.” Now, his eyes ‘almost worn out,” he was ready to quit the printing business altogether. Timothy turned over the active management of the South Carolina Gazette to Thomas Powell and informed Franklin he would pursue a comfortable position with the British administration as a naval officer in Charleston’s port.32

Powell instantly began railing at Britain, going further than Timothy had ever dared go himself. One contributor boldly asserted, “I will venture to affirm, that our liberties have never at any former period, been invaded with an equal prospect of success.” In particular, the South Carolina Gazette published scathingly vicious essays about King George. The contributors wrote that “every vice, and every folly” had been committed while under his rule. Their censure of his choice for government officials was

106

even more biting. “He has shown that he thoroughly knew, what men of all his subjects,

were the least able to govern, and the readiest to oppress.”33

On September 24, 1772, Powell removed the King’s arms from the South

Carolina Gazette’s masthead, solidifying his position in opposition to the Crown. He printed essays by revolutionaries John Wilkes, John Dickinson, “Junius,” and Stephen

Hopkins. But Powell was ahead of the general population in his disgust for the King of

England. Many living in South Carolina still believed their King was good and gracious, even if Parliament had a habit of oppressing the people. In 1773, the citizens of

Charleston were still so attached to King George that they celebrated his birthday with a parade, entertainment, food, and a demonstration by the Charleston Artillery Company in a “very uncommon and dignified Manner.”34

Two weeks after this celebration, Powell was jailed for contempt after printing the

proceedings of the royal council without official authorization. The timing could not have

been better for Timothy. His attempts to secure a position in the British navy had been

unsuccessful. With Powell out of the way, the South Carolina Gazette’s old printer

stepped in and again took control of the newspaper.

Almost immediately, Timothy reinserted the King’s arms into the masthead of the

South Carolina Gazette. The inclusion of the design was a reflection of the popular

sentiment in Charleston, however, not the printer’s personal beliefs. Timothy’s belief in the patriot cause grew firm during his first year back at the South Carolina Gazette, and

by 1774 he became truly devoted to American liberty. On April 9, 1774 in a private letter

to Samuel Adams, the printer wrote with apparent delight that the “Enemies to Liberty”

considered him a dangerous opponent. He became a member of several patriot

107

committees, a delegate to the provincial congress, and later would be a clerk to the

General Assembly. In the pages of the South Carolina Gazette, Timothy relentlessly

opposed Britain’s taxes on tea and the Boston Port Act. Essays on Patriotism graced the

front pages of the newspaper.35

Still, Timothy’s inclusion of the King’s arms in the Gazette’s masthead left some

in Charleston wondering at the printer’s loyalties. After the battle at Lexington and

Concord in April 1775, America became “threatened with immediate Ruin.” No longer

could any American remain undecided. Timothy’s readers challenged the printer to

declare his loyalties outright. “Silence becomes criminal,” one writer stated, and another

wrote “the Season for Action” had arrived. The Americans could no longer cling to any

part of the British nation.36

Timothy made his decision to back the patriots officially on May 29, 1775, when

he removed the King’s arms from the masthead of the South Carolina Gazette. His

readers assured him in that edition that by choosing to break away from the tyranny and

abuse of Britain, his name would “be enrolled in the List of Fame, with Blessings to

Eternity,” and that future generations would call him “Hero.” Indeed, it appears Timothy

exclaimed through the writer Caroliniensis, whose article he gave the most prominent

position in the first newspaper without the engraving, “Let us resolve upon LIBERTY or

DEATH, and let us stand or fall together…the Risque may be great, but the Cause IS

glorious.” Timothy would never include another Tory essay or British symbol in his newspaper again.37

Both Timothy and Goddard may have begun by supporting the British

government, but by the time the Revolution began, the pair morphed into powerful

108

proponents of American liberty. These changes from Tory to patriot were reflected in the nameplate engravings. When the newspapers supported the British, royal symbols were used. As soon as the printers broke away from the Tories, all such symbols were deleted.

109

Chapter 5

Initially Unbiased Newspapers

James Rivington, John Holt, and Hugh Gaine were competitors from the start. All printers in New York City, they became natural rivals in their attempt to woo readers to

subscribe to their newspaper and ignore the others. Each had wildly different

temperaments, backgrounds, and political ideals, and they spent most of the years

preceding and during the Revolution at loggerheads with each other. The three printers

had only two things in common, other than their location. First, they all began their

printing careers with the goal to keep their newspapers open and impartial. Second, they

all three failed dismally.

Both Rivington and Holt were well-educated men. Rivington, the printer of

Rivington’s New-York Gazeteer, was described as polite, talented, and intelligent by his

contemporaries. He was also reckless. Even before he emigrated from his home in

England to America, he earned and gambled away an entire fortune. Holt, publisher of

The New York Journal, was passionate, fiery, charismatic, and religious. He began life as

a merchant in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he served for a short time as mayor of the

city.1

Gaine, an Irishman and the printer of the New-York Mercury, is described in most

histories past and present as cowardly. One young 18th century New York lawyer, called

Gaine “a fickle fellow, and easily intimidated.” Isaiah Thomas wrote that the printer’s

“political creed, it seems, was to join the strongest party.” Still, the printer was a hard

110

worker, economical, “punctual in his dealings, of correct moral habits, and respectable as

a citizen.”2

Gaine was the first to open his New York newspaper. His first edition of the New-

York Mercury was issued on August 3, 1752. From the beginning, Gaine attempted to keep his newspaper neutral in political debates, but with little success. He learned early on just how angry proponents for any given cause could become when facing resistance.

When a debate arose in 1753 over the use of public funds to support a religious college,

Gaine refused to enter the political fray. His neutrality earned him the wrath of several leading citizens, who claimed the printer sold out his religion and the freedom of the press by refusing to support one side of the argument.3

For more than a decade, the New-York Mercury appeared without any masthead

engraving whatsoever. On November 15, 1762, Gaine added the royal coat of arms to his

masthead, presumably to celebrate the newspaper’s ten-year anniversary. At this point,

independence or any kind of rebellion against Britain was nearly unthinkable. The

Colonists were reaping huge benefits in trade and protection from their association with

England. In this atmosphere, the King’s arms engraving seemed appropriate and safe.

The newly decorated masthead of the New-York Mercury was short lived,

however. In 1763, the cut was removed and a figure of Mercury, the Roman messenger of

the gods, was added in its place. Presumably, the decision was made as a matter of taste.

Perhaps it seemed only logical that the namesake of the newspaper should grace the top

of each edition. Several years later, the cut was again changed, this time to the New York

Province’s coat of arms. It was one of the few American symbols to grace a Colonial

111

newspaper masthead before 1776, suggesting Gaine had far more patriotic feelings than many give him credit for, even at this early stage.

When the Stamp Act was announced in 1765, Gaine’s response to the new legislation was not nearly as brash as the other newspapers. Still attempting to remain unbiased, the printer tried to print essays both for and against the infamous Stamp Act.

“To be well acquainted with those Arguments, in Support of Measures which so nearly concern us, is undoubtedly desired by every judicious Reader,” he wrote.4

It was, however, a dangerous time to fence-sit. The Sons of Liberty raided homes and press shops all over New York. An unknown citizen threw a letter into the shop window of John Holt, then printer of the New-York Gazette, and Weekly Post-Boy, threatening his life, home, and family if he closed up shop because of the Stamp Act.

When Albany printer Peter Van Schaak refused to swear he wouldn’t purchase stamped paper, the Sons of Liberty broke into his home and committed “some Outrages on the

Furniture, Windows and Balcony; which latter…was entirely demolished.”5

Gaine became more outspoken against the stamps as the enactment date drew near, but instead of openly defying the British government once the hated tax was in effect, he simply suspended publication of the New-York Mercury until the act was repealed.

Meanwhile, Gaine’s family was growing. He and his wife Sarah had a three-year old daughter and a two-year-old son, and were expecting their third child. On September

14, 1764, a baby girl was born, but tragedy stained the happy event. Sarah died unexpectedly either during childbirth or shortly after, leaving Hugh a single parent with three very small children. He did not remarry until 1769.6

112

After the repeal, the New-York Mercury remained neither solidly Tory nor Patriot.

Gaine took a lukewarm stance during the1760s and early 1770s. Even the Boston

Massacre, which enflamed most Colonists, did not spark a firm response from the printer.

His friends applauded him for remaining above the political fray, but his enemies called him weak-kneed and foolish. The printer himself continued to maintain that he merely insisted on keeping his press open to all parties.

The people of New York were hardly deprived of political news, however. In

1767 John Holt struck out on his own after spending several years as the head printer for the Post-Boy. Holt felt confident he could conduct his own paper, the newly christened

New-York Journal, or, General Advertiser, “with the same Spirit, and to the same Ends, -

-the Suppression of Evil, and the Promotion of pubic and private Happiness” as the New

York Post-Boy.7

He began the first edition of the New York Journal by calling on his readers to

bear witness that during his time as a printer for the New York Post-Boy, he “never shrunk from his Duty In the worst of Times, nor deserted the Cause of Liberty and his country, when it was most dangerous to assert them.” He reminded the Journal’s subscribers, “when a Cause becomes popular, and out of reach of Danger, Crowds are ready to offer themselves in its Favor; but it is only in Times of Difficulty and Danger, its real Friends can be certainly known. He assured his readers that they could count on him to maintain his values, even during difficult times.8

The New York Journal began with no engraving in its masthead, but Holt assured

his readers that, “when Opportunity permits, I shall procure a Cut for the Head of my

Paper, till which Time, it will be published in its present Form.” Within one short week,

113

he had found a cut he considered suitable: the King’s coat of arms. The engraving was

smaller and cruder than most, but it unmistakably was formed in the design of the royal lion and unicorn bearing the arms of King George III.9

Holt’s choice of engraving reflected his newly developed, temperate attitude

toward the British government. Rather than hold the ministry as a whole responsible for

the Colonies’ woes as he had while at the New York Post-Boy, Holt now blamed a small

“Faction” in Parliament, and claimed that virtuous members of the legislature had

“deliver’d us from Oppression” and “preserved us from Slavery and Ruin.” This fete,

Holt wrote, earned these men “our most sincere and hearty Thanks, Gratitude and Love.”

The King, Parliament, and people of Great Britain had, according to Holt, united with the

Americans as “really, and truly but one People, whose Interests are united, and inseparably connected.” Holt had high hopes for a continued connection between the

Colonies and their mother country. “Henceforth, may no partial Designs take Place! May

the Prosperity of the whole British Empire, be the Object of every one’s pursuit.”10

With this goal for unity in mind, Holt promised his readers the New York Journal would remain uninfluenced by any one political party. The printer firmly believed that when all parties and all sides were represented, the truth would rise to the top. He wrote,

“Let the Press be but free, and that freedom will sufficiently check its Extravagancies.”11

Both Holt and Gaine frequently published essays asserting America was at peace.

Despite these claims, trouble was brewing. In 1767, rumors reached the Colonies that

three artillery companies had sailed from Britain to North America for reasons unknown.

The Americans received the news as a grim omen. The soldiers already stationed in New

York and Boston had incurred the hatred of the citizens. The Bostonians had been pushed

114

to riot at least once, and the New Yorkers’ loathing towards the soldiers reached an all-

time high after the Red Coats repeatedly attempted to saw down, dig out, and blow up the

city’s liberty pole. Holt could not fathom the animosity of the soldiers, calling them

“mischievous Spirits,” and remarking that “the Causes of such a malevolent Disposition

towards the Inhabitants is unknown.” The Colonies dreaded the addition of three more

companies worth of these type of men.12

Worse still, Parliament struck out at the Colonies with a new tax known as the

Townshend Duties. When the Colonies debated the efficacy of a Non-Importation

Agreement, Holt made room for both sides of the argument in the New York Journal. One

article claimed that the Americans were “dreaming” if they believed they could force

Britain to kowtow before them. The same writer claimed that if the Americans followed

through with the Non-Importation Agreement, the people of England would “hate you

most cordially.”13

These Tory accounts challenged Holt’s resolve to stay unbiased. The printer

published the articles, but also found a way to make his personal opinions known. Rather

than simply print the Whig version of events in the next column over like Gaine, Holt

footnoted the Tory essays, interjecting his own sly thoughts. “Tis pity,” he wrote, that the

public was not told the real story by Tory accounts. Essential elements were left out in a

vicious attempt to misconstrue the facts, he claimed. The printer then went on to explain

the Whig version of the story. It seems Holt was more dedicated to a balanced press in theory than in actual practice.14

The printer footnoted more and more Tory articles as the tension in New York

grew ever increasingly profound. Enmity between the soldiers and the citizens reached an

115

all time pitch by early 1770. The soldiers again attempted to destroy the liberty pole, and, after several failed attempts, “availed themselves of the dead hour of night; and at one o’clock they cut down the pole, sawed and split it in pieces, and carried them to [the home of a patriot] where they threw them down, and said let us go to our barracks.” On top of this outrage, the soldiers were also accused of breaking windows in the town’s homes, threatening the inhabitants, and breaking into at least one house. The soldier’s misdeeds enraged the people so much that they began to question the military’s very purpose in New York. “Every man of sense amongst us knows that the army is not kept here to protect, but to enslave us.”15

Had the people of New York not completely hated the British troops as of late

February 1770, they made up their minds after the events of early March. News of the

Boston Massacre reached the city just days after it took place on March 5, 1770. Holt printed an account of the murders just seven days later. His version, which was identical to the story propagated and sent out by rebel leaders in Boston, was lined in hard black rules and decorated with four engravings of coffins, sculls and crossbones.16

Despite the early broadside containing only the Whig version of events, Holt grudgingly maintained his premise of an unbiased press:

The Printer hereof being frequently reduced to the Dilemma of offending a great Number of his Customers, if he either publishes, or rejects to publish, several of the Pieces that are sent him for publication, He has concluded to give each Side, upon equal Terms, full Scope to say what they please…for as a Printer, he is no Party, but equally at the Service of all.”17

True to his word, Holt printed an alternative account of the events in Boston in the

New York Journal’s very next edition. This account was much less inflammatory,

116

admitting that the “Post [rider] could not certainly tell the Reason [why the soldiers

discharged their weapons], whether they were assaulted, or too closely pressed, or were

order’d to fire – but we hear Capt. Presto, who commanded, denies that he gave Orders

to fire.”18

Despite his fresh pledge to objectivity, Holt’s personal beliefs are still seen in the

Journal. In his coverage of the Boston Massacre, Holt’s opinion shines through the amount of space he gave each side. He printed the Whig version on two full pages—a large amount of text to be dedicated to any given topic in a four-page newspaper. The second, more temperate account was pushed to page three of an already crowded edition and limited to less than one paragraph in length.19

The printer’s personal preference for the patriot cause also tainted the debates concerning the repeal of the Townshend Duties. He printed both sides at length, but the vast majority of articles published in the New York Journal were slanted heavily in favor of the patriots. One contributor recommended the Colonies “bring the daring invaders of

[American] liberties to condign punishment.”20

In all instances, the Whig essays Holt published were far more spirited than their

Tory counterparts. The New York Journal’s Tory contributors wrote well-reasoned

arguments full of fair judgments and common sense. The Whigs were not nearly as

troubled about providing logical justifications. Their essays tended to be heavy in

emotion and low in sound reasoning. Often they dropped all rational defense and went

straight to hitting below the belt, mocking and jeering at their opposition. In a mock

“GENEALOGICAL HISTORY OF A TORY,” one Whig claimed that all Tories were

descended from Sin, Error, Ignorance, Oppression, and the Devil. Another writer called

117

the essays by Tories “rude and malicious…intended at one of the deepest Stabs to the

LIBERTIES to the SONS OF LIBERTY in America.” He continued by chastising the lot

of them, “Shame. –Shame to common honesty. –SHAME TO EVERYTHING THAT IS

GOOD.”21

In February 1773, a new newspaper provided Holt and his contributors another

target for their written barbs: Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer or the Connecticut,

Hudson’s River, New-Jersey, and Quebec Weekly Advertiser. James Rivington, a

bookseller who came to the city in early 1760, printed the newspaper. Holt and Rivington

were instant enemies. Gaine, who still maintained a relatively low profile, did not seem to

mind the additional competition.22

For a few years, Rivington did his very best to keep Rivington’s New-York

Gazetteer out of the bureaucratic fray. Even the newspaper’s nameplate engraving was

apolitical. The masthead was split by a large cut of a ship with full sails and the words

“THE LONDON PACKET” written underneath its hull. Rivington knew he had

“undertaken a Task of great Importance and Difficulty” by pledging to print both sides,

but like Holt and Gaine, he believed that it was the duty of every newspaperman to

remain open to all opinions. He told his readers that he realized “what is highly agreeable

to some, will be equally disagreeable to others.” He also knew that by printing both sides,

he could not hope to “entirely escape from Censure,” but promised to “carefully

endeavour not to deserve it.”23

It was not Rivington’s politics that upset Holt so much. It was his talent. Within a

few short months, Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer earned a sizable circulation and a

good reputation, and was even beginning to spread to other Colonies. One New Yorker

118

wrote in a quick note to some friends in Philadelphia that he did not have time to write a

lengthy letter, but that he wanted to enclose a copy of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer,

which he thought well “worth the Postage.”24

Rivington entered the political fight between the American patriots and England on November 11, 1773 when he published an attack by “Cassius,” a patriot of New York.

The article lashed out against a tea consignee who refused to give up his claim to a shipment of tea after the practice had officially been banned. True to his promise to print

both sides of every story, Rivington published a counter-argument to Cassius’s article the

very next day.25

The patriots of New York were not impressed with Rivington’s dedication to

impartiality, despite their many long-winded discourses about the importance of a free

press. All should be free to express their opinions, but only if those opinions supported

the patriot cause. The patriots grumbled and threw so many thinly veiled threats at the

printer that Rivington’s friends became concerned for his business’s future and his own

safety. One friend tried to convince the printer in a personal letter to support the side of

the patriots, no matter how “averse to such publications” he felt. “You must remember

that I have often cautioned you against moderation, or the impartiality of letting us look

through both sides of the glass.” It was in the printer’s best interest, the friend explained,

“not to shew the least countenance of your being a friend to government or good order.”

For the printer to be successful, the friend felt Rivington’s newspaper must “verge as near

to treason, rebellion, and anarchy as possible. The nearer the better for your pocket I

promise you.”26

119

Neither friend nor foe could convince Rivington to deviate from his promise to remain unbiased. His consistent attention to both sides of the argument became something of a pattern within the pages of the New York Gazetteer. In the same month, he published one broadside that claimed American “patriots” should be the “object of public ridicule,” and an article written by “Legion” which threatened anyone who imported or exported tea.27

Some writers pled for “impartial judgment” and moderate viewpoints, and

claimed, “Many with honest purposes, have been deluded by passionate exclamations for

liberty.” The same edition of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer another article in which

writer who rationally argued the legality of the Tea Act was accused of being a “lying,

infamous, and sophistical” man, and “a curse to the Community, a Disgrace to Human

Nature.”28

Holt and his New York Journal agreed more with the latter sentiment. As the

controversy over the Tea Act raged in New York, Holt gave up nearly all pretenses of

being an unbiased printer. While he still asserted his impartiality outwardly, a quick

glance at any one of the editions of the New York Journal from late 1773 or early 1774

shows Holt did little to keep this pledge. Whenever he printed a Tory article, he resorted

to his old tactics of mocking and discrediting the writer. One article from London

informed the Colonies that the East India Trading Company would soon drastically lower

the prices on tea in an effort to induce the Colonists to buy their goods. Holt quoted the

article faithfully, then inserted his own comment in italics at the end: “The consequences

of a duty on tea in America begins to appear.”On another occasion, Holt reprinted Tory

120

articles from another newspaper in order to keep up pretenses, but disparaged the writers by calling them “Scoundrels” and “rascally Writers.”29

By spring of 1774, Holt printed many outlandish accusations against anyone who

opposed the patriot’s view on Non-Importation. One article suggested that a certain ship

carrying tea to the Colonies was plagued with bad luck because of the sins of those who

sent its cargo. “Ever since her departure from England,” the ship was met “with a

continued succession of misfortunes, having on Board somewhat worse than a Jonah.”

The writer hoped that the ocean would toss the ship for several weeks, then throw it

“back upon the place whence it came.”30

Holt was jubilant when news reached New York in late December 1773 that a group of Bostonians plundered a tea ship in their harbor and dumped its cargo overboard,

an event later known as the Boston Tea Party. While many Colonists berated Boston for

taking rebellion a step too far, Holt praised their audacity and determination. The printer

saw the Tea Party as a testament to America’s strength of will, and was sure King George

III, who the printer believed was still the Colonies’ friend, would see it in the same light.

Holt was confident the Tea Party would show Parliament the error of their ways, and was

prepared to hear their apologies. The printer expected every day for Parliament to “step

forth, and say honestly, ‘we see we have been misled…we will tread back our steps, we

will place every thing as it was before the stamp act…and we will not be ashamed to say,

alas! we have been in the wrong.’”31

It came as no surprise when Holt supported a handful of New Yorkers that copied

the Bostonians by dumping a shipment of tea into the East River. Rivington also publically supported the destruction of tea. Up to this point, Rivington printed both sides

121

but kept his own opinions out of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer. Now, he claimed it

was with “inexpressible satisfaction” that he reported a full account of the event, along with details of other tea ships being turned away from harbors around the Colonies.32

Rivington took his public support of the destruction of tea one step further. For the first time, he weighted his Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer with more patriot than

Tory opinions. One article claimed there “was not [one] alternative left, between the destruction of the tea at Boston and New York, and a submission to the odious duty.” The same writer challenged the community to “Strain every nerve with an honest and spirited zeal in the common cause. Demonstrate to our dear fellow countryman in the neighboring

Colonies, that we… will co-operate with them in tearing out every plant of slavery by the roots.”33

While Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer supported the Boston Tea Party,

Rivington the man felt more moderately. In a letter addressed to a friend in Boston, the

printer begged for any news to be sent quickly to his New York shop, then told the friend

he hoped the delegates from the different Colonies would be “everything cool and

prudent.” By this, Rivington meant he believed the men should “urge payment for the

Tea, which, once done, will go a great way towards a conciliation of these unhappy

Distractions.” While these few lines do not spout any strong Tory ideals, they certainly

betray Rivington’s dislike for the destructive actions of the American Sons of Liberty.34

It was not long before Rivington reverted back to printing both patriot and Tory views. He publically praised the patriots, calling at least one of them a “sincere friend to liberty,” and applauded those who advocated “the freedom and rights of the Colonies in particular.” He also mercilessly mocked the group. Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer also

122

praised and condemned the Tories. Perhaps most telling of Rivington’s feelings towards

both parties are the lyrics to a new song he published after the Boston Tea Party:

The TORIES are rogues, and deceitful sad dogs, But it ne’er has been said that the WHIGS lie; They’re chaste and discreet, and their words are as sweet, And as free from HOGOO, as—a pig stye.35

The engravings used in Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer reflected the printer’s

dedication to keeping his press open to all parties. The paper was free from any

politically charged symbols. Unlike Holt and Gaine, Rivington did not even offset official

British proclamations or proceedings of Parliament with a small engraving of the King’s coat of arms. He used less charged symbols instead, like an engraving of a post rider, or

several different images of sailing ships. The printer even exchanged his original

masthead engraving of a large ship and the words “The London Packet,” for a cut of

another ship that did not include any reference to England. 36

By all measures, Rivington did his best to maintain a free and unbiased press. His

newspaper was open to all contributors: moderate, Tory, and patriot. But it was a

dangerous time in New York City to strive for impartiality. Anyone with reservations

against rebellion or leanings towards loyalism were branded a Tory and persecuted

relentlessly by the patriots. It quickly became apparent that the patriots would not

approve of Rivington while he continued to print Tory essays, even if he balanced these

writings with patriot articles.

Holt, for one, made sure he could never be confused as a Tory. His New York

Journal was now unbiased in theory only. The printer took every possible occasion to

assert his own support of the patriot party. In order to ensure his loyalties could not

123

misconstrued, the printer even boldly took on George III. The Colonists would not, one

article asserted, “surrender their birth-rights to Ministers, Parliaments, or Kings.”37

For all Holt’s conviction, he was not yet ready to make a break from the Crown, however. The printer continued to show his allegiance by inserting the King’s arms into the New York Journal’s masthead each week, and he hoped a full reconciliation between the King and America was close at hand. In April 1774, he updated the masthead engraving for a new, more intricate design of the King’s arms.

Despite how near at hand the outbreak of the Revolution was, Holt was not alone in remaining loyal to the Crown. Most New Yorkers felt strong ties to the King at this point. After they dumped the tea shipment into the East River (a highly rebellious act), the people celebrated their defiance by crowding into the local coffee house and singing,

“God Save the King.”38

The New Yorker’s devotion to the sovereign was not strong enough to back away

from the conflict without first securing the Colonies’ rights, however. If Britain continued

to deny America those rights, the city was willing to rebel. Holt agreed with them. “That

[King George III] may long remain as the King of a free people, is the second wish that

animates my heart. The first is, THAT THE PEOPLE MAY BE FREE.”39

Holt and the New Yorkers were faithful to the King, but no longer willing to follow him blindly. George III must earn their loyalty through his actions. Holt printed several articles suggesting a course the King should follow if he wanted Britain and

America to “continue firmly united and flourish to the latest ages.” George III should treat the Colonies “like free men, and…fellow Subjects in Britain.” If he needed “the

Assistance of his American Subjects, he must apply to their House of Commons for

124

Grants, in the same manner he does to his Parliament in Britain.” If the King approached

the Colonies in this manner, Holt assured the Sovereign that the Americans would “be

animated to contribute the utmost in their Power to promote the Honour of the Crown and the Support of the Kingdom.”40

The King was not the only person to whom Holt gave recommendations for

improvement. The printer also tirelessly pointed out the many flaws he saw in Rivington

and Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer. Whether Holt’s criticism stemmed from jealousy or from his desire to diminish the reputation of a competitor is unknown. Either way, Holt skewered Rivington in nearly every edition of the New York Journal. The two printers, never friends, became out and out enemies.

Holt accused Rivington’s newspaper of showing favoritism towards the Tory cause. Rivington, who still maintained his unbiased status, inserted a note into one of his newspaper’s editions refuting the claims. Rivington was insulted that “Some persons, unfriendly to the Printer’s interest” would suggest his “press is not open to writers of different sentiments.” The printer assured his readers,

… that there never was any foundation for such an imputation, and that he is ready to print the lucubration’s of any author who confines himself within the line of decorum, and is willing to be at the expense of publishing them.41

Rivington’s denial of bias did nothing to stem the flow of criticisms. Holt

continued to publish slanderous accusations that Rivington favored the Tory cause.

Historians, too, have rejected Rivington’s claims of impartiality. Some have even

suggested that the printer’s insistence of payment for any article inserted in his

125

newspaper automatically excluded many Whig writers, who could not afford to pay for

their submissions. 42

Their claims are not entirely unfounded. Rivington’s printing had begun to slowly

drift towards the Tory cause, but the shift was only slight. The change began almost imperceptibly. Reports of the oppressive acts of Parliament were still inserted weekly,

and Rivington’s shop still turned out pamphlets from patriot writers like Philip

Livingston and Benjamin Franklin. And yet, the Tory essays steadily began to overpower

the patriot articles. This trend began in early 1774, when Rivington publically excused

himself from inserting any more Whig poetry into Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, on

the basis that is was nearly all poorly written, generally senseless, and filled him with

“Disgust.”43

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer was also slightly biased by the strength of the

articles Rivington chose to publish. The newspaper was filled with weak-worded patriot

essays balanced by clever, passionate Tory articles. One Tory wrote, “when men sally

forth with arms in their hands, and in a warlike manner attempt to disposses the peaceable inhabitants of a county, …[their action] strikes at the peace of the whole province.”

Another writer called the patriot leaders “TWISERTERS of TWISTIFACTIONS,” and cautioned them to “be a little more cautious of future mistakes.” Patriot articles were flat and sometimes, downright boring.44

Despite these subtle changes, Rivington still printed both sides. For every Tory

article he published, he printed as many essays with a patriot tint. In his account of the

Boston Tea Party, the printer claimed that the East India Trade Company and the British

Ministry were attempting to “enslave this country” with their tea duties—hardly a Tory

126

sentiment. Later, he printed that the East India Company would find “very few friends in

the nation.” He grieved over the many “oppressive” duties Parliament “endeavoured to

saddle the Colonies with.”45

When news of the Boston Port Act reached the streets of New York, the printers

had an interesting choice to make. The public, who had criticized Boston heavily for

ruining the tea, now inexplicably rallied around Massachusetts. As far as the general

population was concerned, the Bostonians were foolish to destroy private property, but

the Port Act crossed the line of decency. It would deprive innocent fishermen, merchants, and townsfolk of their means, and the city would be left without fresh food or supplies.

The New Yorkers saw the act as cruel and unreasonable.

Gaine skulked mostly in the shadows during this conflict, never taking a strong

stance. Holt, on the other hand, was outraged and openly supported the Bostonians. He

printed many articles expressing fury at the act, which many deemed “fatal.” Like many

other Americans, Holt feared the act was a sign of things to come for all the Colonies.

“The Boston port bill is a mere experiment; but, as the extensive views of its parents are known, it might already be nam’d the Anti-American, and still more properly, THE

ANTI-BRITISH BILL.” Most feared that once the act took place, nothing would stand in

the way of Parliament depriving the Colonies of all their rights. “This dreadful extent of

power is claimed by the British Parliament on whom we have not the least check, and

whose natural prejudices will ever induce them to oppress us.”46

Most essays printed in Holt’s New York Journal contained a sense of desperation

and confusion regarding what step the Colonies should take next. “You behaved as you

127

ought,” wrote one New Yorker to the Americans, but “the petitions… asserting our rights and supplicating a respect for them, were treated with contempt.”47

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer published both sides of the argument surrounding the Port Act, but most New Yorkers didn’t notice. They fixated instead on one anonymous article Rivington published in June that criticized a public fast held in behalf of the Bostonians. Several leading patriots in the city went to Rivington’s shop and demanded to know the author of the inflammatory piece. When Rivington would not give up the name, both he and the writer were threatened. The Chairman of the New York

Committee of Correspondence was incensed. He declared: “The author must not escape so. He is considered here as an incendiary! An enemy to truth and his country!” The chairman then berated Rivington by stating, “The Printers have told the public they were authorized to say what is false! It is expected from the printers, and I, in behalf of the inhabitants of this city, call upon them to give up the author.”48

The controversy eventually ended when the author, a man named Benjamin

Booth, gave himself up. The dispute itself was relatively minor, but it proved the New

Yorkers would hold printers responsible not only for what they wrote themselves, but also for what they printed. It also showed the patriot leaders of New York just how dangerous one rogue printer could be.49

No matter whether his enemies thought him a traitor and a Tory, Rivington’s published works through spring 1774 and even his own personal correspondence show he was not dedicated to either side. When he was asked to print an attack on John Hancock’s memorial of the Boston Massacre, Rivington felt he had to accept, but did so grudgingly.

He wrote a friend, “I was under the necessity of printing it.” He rationalized printing the

128

piece by reminding himself that by doing so, he secured “an opportunity for any …to

reply to it.”50

And so Rivington was neither Tory nor Patriot. Most likely his own ideologies were somewhere in the middle of both parties, believing and rejecting some of the principles of both sides. However strong his opinions were, however, Rivington refused

to let them color Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, believing that as soon as he did, his press would cease to be free.51

The practice put Rivington at odds with the patriots and the Tories in New York.

Both parties accused the printer of “partisan” publishing.

I wish the printers of public chronicles would be cautious of disgracing their papers, by publishing party relations. While they adhere to matters of fact, ‘tis all well; but when the expand their columns to either patriot or ministerial minions, …they must not, they cannot, they shall not hope to escape the animadversions of a lover of Constitutional Liberty.52

Accusations of Rivington’s bias became so rampant that the printer felt himself

forced to defend his impartiality. On May 5, 1774 he inserted the words “PRINTED at

his EVER OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS, fronting HANOVER SQUARE,”

underneath the ship engraving in his newspaper’s masthead. Rivington clearly wanted to make his intentions unmistakable. The printer commented on the change, claiming:

Since the first publication of this paper, the Printer has, without reserve inserted every piece sent to him relative to the liberties and interests of America, his press has been equally open to the sons of freedom and to those who have differed in sentiments from them; upon these principles he embarked in this profession, and from them he will never deviate. If, therefore, any of his readers should be disgusted with the future lucubration’s inserted in this Gazetteer, they, on demand, shall have free access the week following,

129

with an answer to them;--nothing more can be reasonably required of any printer upon the face of the earth.53

Writers arguing both sides of the American controversy nearly swallowed up the next edition of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer. One called the Americans full of

“mutinous spirit” and threatened that a large fleet was on its way from London to subdue the rebellious Colonies. The same sarcastically argued that if King George III backed down from the current legislation, “the seat of government should be immediately removed to Massachusetts-Bay.” Another lengthy piece, taking up the entire second page of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer and a part of the third, called the Whig’s actions

“patriotic and spirited.” The writer claimed that the rights of Americans were “in danger of being subverted,” and that Parliament was “daily practicing every art to exasperate” the Colonies. The same author goes on to challenge any who believed America would back down. “Let him learn that the respectable public is not to be laughed, jeered, or frightened out of their liberties.54

The conflict between America and Britain became more heated every day.

Rivington knew the vicious debates coming from both sides of the contest could not survive within one newspaper for long. Two weeks after having inserted his new motto, he removed the words “EVER” from his masthead imprint. It now merely read,

“PRINTED at his OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS.” The deletion suggests

Rivington knew it would not be long before the people forced him to choose a side.55

To add more complications to his situation, Rivington fell upon difficult financial times. Many of his subscribers were late in their payments. He confessed to Henry Knox that “most of them, had my Gazetteer twelve month,” and not yet paid. The printer asked

Knox to help him “apply for payment,” but Rivington knew even a balanced ledger

130

wouldn’t save him for long. As anger towards his press increased daily, many of his

readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions.56

Even with that possibility hanging over him, Rivington continued printing

inflammatory essays. In late August 1774, the printer earned the wrath of Isaac Sears, a

dangerous mob leader in New York, by printing a piece abusing the Sons of Liberty.

Sears responded with a letter of his own printed in Holt’s New York Journal on

September 1, demanding to know the author’s name. Rivington refused, arguing that a free press should not fear tyranny. “After having been concerned so many Years in conducting a News Paper, it is not necessary that I should now be told what belongs to the Liberty of the Press,” he wrote bitingly. The insult to Sears would later haunt the printer.57

Although Rivington’s own Tory sentiments crept into the words published in

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, the printer symbolically maintained his impartial

stance. He would not declare his open allegiance to the British crown by changing his

masthead engraving to a more loyal symbol. The printer was fully aware of the

importance of such symbols and their political implications, but he did not consider them

fit to appear in an “unbiased” newspaper like his own. In August 1774, he mocked

Boston printer Isaiah Thomas for altering the masthead of his Massachusetts Spy to

include a rendition of the famous “JOIN, or DIE” engraving, complete with segmented

snake.58

Rivington’s jokes were not well received in New York. The people favored the

patriot cause, making it ever more difficult for Rivington to remain neutral. The printer

tried to convince his subscribers that Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer supported the

131

“cause of the government” as well as the “rights of America,” but to no avail. He

received regular threats from the Sons of Liberty, led by his enemy Sears. Others took

less violent but more effective means of hurting the printer. Nearly 100 Philadelphians

cancelled their subscriptions to Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer after Rivington printed one particularly incendiary Tory piece. Contributors to other newspapers suggested ways to stop Rivington’s presses, writing that, “I think we ought to unite in punishing so great a scoundrel as he [Rivington] appears to be.”59

While Rivington scrambled for subscribers and support, Holt thrived. He did not

even bother making pretences of impartiality in his New York Journal now. By early July

1774, the New York Journal’s transformation into an entirely pro-American newspaper

was nearly complete. Holt printed articles regularly that belittled the English

Government. One writer even called the members of Parliament “horrid Monsters” and

claimed they were “a Disgrace to human Nature, and justly merit our utmost Detestation,

and the GALLOWS, to which they are assigned, and then to be burnt by Electric Fire.”60

The possibility of war between America and Britain seemed more and more probable. Rumors spread throughout New York that a large fleet was making its way to

America, with the intent that the troops aboard the ships were meant to “reduce the mutinous spirit of the Americans.” Another report claimed that four regiments of foot soldiers were sent to Boston, along with six men of war ships to be stationed in its harbor.61

More infuriating still were the reports that came in each week from London

belittling the Colonies. Even the King seemed to be against America. He declared the

people of Massachusetts in “real and actual rebellion,” and was reportedly “more

132

inflamed [by the American’s actions]..than any of his Ministers.” A writer from London

wrote, “The Colonies are in open revolt; but that gives them infinite satisfaction. …they

will only expose themselves to the disgrace and detestation of every true patriot: for the

question is reduced to this: Whether the Colonies shall give laws to England, or England

to the Colonies?”62

The reports from London enraged the Colonies, but did little to help resolve the

dispute of what to do next. The Boston Port Act seemed to make clear Parliament’s black

intentions for all America. Most were afraid that the act was meant to punish Boston for

asserting their rights, and that the other Colonies could expect the same if ever “they

dared to resist the shackles which it is determined they should wear.” In Holt’s mind,

there was only one option left: Unify the Colonies. The printer pushed this idea constantly in the pages of his New York Journal. The unity of the Colonies saved

America during the time of the Stamp Act, and it was the only thing that would save them now: “We must stand or fall together.” Parliament intended to cause the “immediate destruction of all the liberties of America, the ruin of all our property, and greatly endangers the safety of our persons.” Only the “most deliberate wisdom, the Ready council, and firm resolution of America” to stand firm would prevent “this dreadful crisis.”63

The country responded immediately to Holt’s call. Many counties, cities, and

even entire Colonies banded together to write letters of support to the Bostonians. The

printer published them all—from Maryland to Georgia, Philadelphia to Rhode Island.

“Every Town in every Colony of America from which we have yet heard, consider the

Case of Boston as their own, and agree, in Sentiment, to unite their Strength …against the

133

tyrannical Encroachments of Great Britain.” All “thinking men” were united against the

Port Act, including Holt. As one writer put it, “Is it not the duty of a virtuous, brave, and

free people to resist tyranny?” The printer published an entire supplement edition of his

newspaper stressing the importance of unity in the Colonies’ fight for their liberties.64

To Holt’s credit, he did include one brief article suggesting that a moderate and cool-headed look at the facts would prove the justness of Parliament’s decision. The printer diminished this attempt at impartiality by mocking the essay, however. Holt used his favorite tactic and punctuated the piece with biting footnotes. The printer rejected the article point by point, and dared the author to refute his claims. Holt wrote that the Tory writer would have to have better arguments before such an article could “be fitted to go down with the good people of this province.”65

Across town, Rivington was getting bored with the continual patriot speeches and

resolves. The Whigs were too emotional and their arguments too weak. Most tiresome of

all, the efforts of the Americans seemed useless to Rivington. He predicted the controversy to end quickly and decisively in favor of the British government. 66

In contrast, contributors to Holt’s New York Journal wrote from around the

Colonies to encourage each other to “Persevere with inflexible fortitude” in the Non-

Importation Agreement, and to sympathize with the Bostonians over the Port Act. “If

Boston yield, which God avert! The ministry expect the other Colonies will not dare to

act otherwise.—Then…our charters will be taken away.”67

The Colonies no longer blamed Parliament alone for their hardships. George III

refused to repeal the Boston Port Act, which he alone had power to do. The port would be

closed until the King himself “pleases to restore it. This is, in fact, to destroy the town,

134

because the inhabitants have had spirit enough to declare that they will be free.” The

Americans worried that the King intended to treat the other Colonies just as cruelly

“whenever they shall dare to assert their rights.”68

To combat these evils, patriot leaders called the first Continental Congress. It

would be the first time in the history of America that representatives from each different

Colony met together to decide on a mutual course of action. Holt was delighted. The printer firmly believed that cooperation between the Colonies was an essential feature in

America’s future. A cry for unity was the constant theme of the New York Journal. “If the

Americans hold out only six months, all will be well…Depend on my intelligence to be good,” a writer from London told New York Journal readers. “Stand it out, or die. If you

give up, you are undone!” The Colonies’ growing solidarity energized Holt. “The present

aspect of public affairs is highly favorable to the liberties of America: the whole

continent seems inspired by one soul, and that soul a vigorous and determined one.”69

The printer proudly reported that other “News Papers from all Quarters, in every

British Colony” also called for unity. Holt saw himself and these other printers as

champions of the patriot cause. He hoped his “readers will excuse our confining the

Papers almost to one Subject—whereby they are rendered less entertaining than usual,”

but he felt the matter at hand was too important to take lightly. “While a Matter of such

Importance in which we are all deeply interested, remains in Suspense—we find our

Customers have little Leisure for any Thing else, or Inclination for Amusement.”70

Holt threw out all pretenses that the New York Journal was impartial and began printing patriot propaganda exclusively. He changed his masthead design to reflect this new editorial policy in mid 1774 (see fig. 13). The design, which splits newspaper’s title,

135

was a throw back to the Stamp Act days, when patriots resurrected Benjamin Franklin’s

famous “JOIN, or DIE” snake. The serpent is split into parts, each labeled for a different

Colony’s name. Underneath the engraving read the words, “UNITE OR DIE.”71

Figure 13 Copy of the nameplate of The New York Journal; or, The General Advertiser

The first edition that included the snake is full of patriot news. The printer published the names of the delegates of the Continental Congress, declared the Boston

Port Act unconstitutional, called Thomas Hutchinson, past governor of Massachusetts, an

“arch Hypocrite and Traitor,” and Lord North, who pushed through the Boston Port Bill, an “insidious and implacable Enemy to the Liberties of America—A Slave of Power and

Betrayer of his Country—A Blood Thirsty Wretch.” A handful of writers tried to voice contrary opinions in Holt’s New York Journal, but were, in the end, swallowed up by the overwhelming number of supporters for the Continental Congress.72

The printer’s publically declared loyalty to the patriot cause and not to the

freedom of the press did not pass unnoticed. Rivington, sharp and witty as ever, scoffed

at Holt and the meaning of his new engraving in a poem published in Rivington’s New-

York Gazetteer:

136

On the SNAKE, depicted at the Head of some American NEW PAPERS. Ye Sons of Sedition, how comes it to pass, That America’s typ’d by a SNAKE---in the grass? Don’t you think ‘tis a scandalous, saucy reflection, That merits the soundest, severest Correction? NEW-ENGLAND’s the HEAD too—NEW ENGLAND’s abused; For the Head of the Serpent we know should be BRUISED.73

Holt replied in his next edition with a lengthy vindication of his new engraving, including a history of the severed snake symbol. According to this article, the serpent was, “from the earliest Ages, used as an Emblem of Wisdom” as well as “Life and

Vigour.” The writer goes on to explain there was a certain type of snake known in folk tradition that would “break into many Pieces, and seem to be dead” when cut up. If the pieces could find each other again and rejoin, however, the snake would live on. Petty differences once divided the Colonies, but now that a “Danger common to all” threatened them, they must find each other and unite like this snake or die. If the Colonies succeeded, they would cease to be a harmless snake and transform into a “watchful

Dragon,” constantly on the lookout to protect their “Rights and Liberties.”74

The explanation was not enough for Rivington. He lashed out at Holt siding with the patriots, and accused him of misconstruing facts. Holt responded defensively, asserting both his honesty as a printer and the justness of the American cause.

If [Rivington…suggests] that I have selected such Paragraphs” in order to “widen the Breach between Great Britain and the Colonies…I deny the charge, and challenge him to support it by any Evidence. If he means, that I have selected for Publication such Facts… [that prove] the real Designs of the Ministry—to enslave the Colonies, and subvert the English Constitution; I freely acknowledge he has not mistaken my Design, which has been to expose them in their true Characters, to the Resentment,

137

abhorrence and Opposition of every British American, or Friend to the natural Rights of Mankind.75

Holt justified his decision to stop printing Tory essays by claiming that he “did

not think their Publication would answer any good Purpose.” He continued his argument

by asserting his honest belief in the cause of Liberty, and his disgust for anyone,

including Rivington, who remained moderate. “If we passively submit to these

Encroachments, we acknowledge the Rights they claim over us…We cannot yield a Tittle

without being absolute Slaves.”76

While he attacked Holt for his lack of objectivity, Rivington was slowly slipped

further into the habit of printing against the patriots. The printer still inserted a fair

amount of patriot propaganda into Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, but began adding his

own quick jabs at the patriots at the end of the essays. He closed one patriot account with

this sentence, “As soon as the printer receives an Authentic account…[it] shall be inserted

in this paper.”77

Rivington’s disgust with the fickle nature of the patriots became clearer with

every edition. For one thing, the patriots continually spouted eloquent speeches on the freedom of the press, but refused to support or even accept Rivington’s attempts at

balanced news. The whispers that America might try for independence were even more

exasperating to the printer. He was willing to support any measures that would restore the

American’s rights, but considered a split from England ridiculous. The printer published

a continual stream of snide remarks to taunt the always-volatile patriots. One such joke

reported that the Bostonians offered their allegiance to the King of France, “on the

condition of his taking them under his protection.” The French King refused, “much to

his honour,” and informed the rebels “he had dissatisfied subjects enough already.”78

138

Jokes aside, the patriotic madness seeping through the Colonies bewildered

Rivington. “A few designing men,” it seemed, somehow convinced their fellow-subjects to revolt against England and to fight oppression with violence. Rivington simply could not support the patriot’s brutish actions. In an inflammatory essay, he challenged the rationality of anyone who could follow such savage men. The patriot leaders were

“capable of adopting” such “violent measures,” that the author of this essay claimed he blushed for the crowds who “suffered them to reign” and who silently looked on while the patriots acted in ways the regular citizens “could not approve.”79

The callous actions of the patriots and their vicious hatred of anything nearing loyalty to England threatened to force Rivington’s hand. With threats increasing after every publication and his list of subscribers steadily dwindling, it became more and more necessary for Rivington to choose a side. Still, he hesitated. With patriots and Tories alike clamoring for him to choose their part, he attempted to remain neutral. The Tory articles he published were well written and well reasoned. Patriot articles were marked by passion and key words like “liberty,” “slavery,” and “freedom.”

The public’s distaste for Rivington’s impartiality grew more apparent each day.

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer lost subscriptions by the bucketful. Rivington reported in the Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer that the newspaper had an enormous circulation of

3,600, but the number was nothing more than a bluff. One of Rivington’s friends confided the truth about the printer’s situation in a private letter to another mutual friend in Philadelphia. The first man asked for help in “procuring Subscriptions for Rivington’s

Paper,” as Rivington had recently lost many customers. The situation was “enough to damp the spirit” of any printer.80

139

It was in these desperate circumstances that Rivington made his first public step

towards openly supporting the British. In late October, he swapped the engraving of a

ship that had for so long graced his nameplate with one of the King’s coat of arms. The

entire edition is riddled with Tory pleas for a return to reason. One begged, “…beloved

friends, we beseech you in brotherly affection to remember, that as under divine

providence we are indebted to the King and his royal ancestors.”81

The new engraving and the increased number of Tory essays did not signal an

abandonment of Rivington’s goal for a balanced press, however. Rivington’s New-York

Gazetteer remained open to all parties, even though the printer feared the “confusions and

horrors of a civil war” the patriots seemed determined to enter. The printer was not

opposed to fighting for the rights of the Colonies, but the idea that brute force was the

only recourse left to America seemed absurd and repulsive to Rivington. The printer

begged the people to calm down and consider their situation rationally. He truly believed that if the Colonies calmly petitioned the King, all would be set right. One contributor wrote:

As you love liberty, as you wish success to its cause, as you desire to have your present struggle applauded through Europe, let your measures be concerted in a calm, open and temperate manner. Zeal and temper blended will discover a fizzed and stationary love of freedom, not the mad impulses and ragings of passions.82

No matter how hard Rivington tried to persuade the Colonies to slow down,

America continued to rush headlong into battle with England. The Continental Congress petitioned the King in hopes of redress, but received no positive response. War appeared imminent. Several Colonies across America formed their own militias in case things got out of hand. Troops in Charlestown and Boston seized the cities’ gunpowder supplies.

140

The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts seriously considered an immediate evacuation

of Boston.83

From his printing shop near the wharf, Holt could sense New York’s heightening

emotions and burning resentment. He continued to refuse any Tory essays space in his

New York Journal, and as an extra defense against being misconstrued as a Loyalist, Holt

qualified the few moderate essays he included in his newspaper. One poem, published in

November 1774, argued against violence for the sake of violence, and called instead for

cool heads. To keep anyone from misinterpreting the poem’s message, Holt inserted this

note directly after the poem: “This is not meant as a caution against defending our rights

with our blood, if we should be driven to that extremity; but only against the…zeal of

those, who seem desirous to let loose the rage of popular resentment, and bring matters immediately to a crisis in this province.”84

Rivington was nowhere near as cautious. In December the printer set the type for the most daring Tory work he had printed yet, a pamphlet entitled “A Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans.” The piece was more than defiant; it was downright incendiary. It argued forcibly that Non-Importation Acts, the destruction of tea, and

American rebellion in general were not only ineffectual, but insane. “There is, there can be, but one way to prevent the ruin that threatens us. Our own misconduct has brought it

forward; and our immediate reformation must stop its progress. He must be blind, that is

not convinced of this.”85

Rivington knew the pamphlet would bring trouble, but was determined to publish

it anyway. He would not, however, ask anyone else to risk the wrath the essay would

141

enkindle. In early November, he wrote the man who usually sold his printing in Boston,

Henry Knox, that he could not, as a friend, ask Knox to sell this particular pamphlet.

The Friendly Address I do not send to you for fear of hurting your interest…my reasons for not troubling you with these very warm, high reasoned pamphlets, is that your very numerous friends on the patriot interest, may be greatly disgusted at your distributing them.86

Rivington did not have long to wait after the “Friendly Address” was distributed

before his fears of backlash proved well founded. It did not matter that Rivington already was in the process of printing a point-by-point rebuttal of the “Friendly Address.” The patriots of New York were furious. The pamphlets were rounded up and burned in at least two taverns in New York. One “Waggish Correspondent” warned Rivington to “Keep yourself out of the fire, Mr. Printer.”87

The warning fell on deaf ears. Rather than deter Rivington, the threats and violence against him goaded the printer further. Rivington was bold enough to report on the fires in his next newspaper and poke fun at the event, writing, “Nothing will go down, at present, it seems, but by measures truly inflammatory.”88

Rivington continued to print coolly reasoned arguments against rebellion. At a time when “every man is to be considered either as a friend or enemy to this country, care

should be taken, that the opinion of the public be founded on facts,” and not “hasty

conclusions” or “slanderous suspicions.” The printer reminded his readers, “in popular

commotions truth is blended with error, and that people under the influence of honest

zeal, are sometimes driven into measures which in more temperate times and a calmer

hour their judgments could not approve.”89

142

The Gazetteer masthead still included the words, “PRINTED at his OPEN and

UNINFLUENCED PRESS,” but remaining unbiased became an ever-more challenging proposition. Persecution against the printer became more pronounced than ever, making it nearly impossible for him to remain neutral. Despite his best efforts he was

“stigmatized for his partiality as a printer, from one end of the continent almost to the other…”90

The harder Rivington tried to keep Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer nonpartisan,

the more the patriots from around the Colonies hated him. Men from Maryland

threatened to tar and feather the printer. An angry, armed mob attacked his home looking

for the printer. Rivington barely escaped to a neighbor’s house in time, where he hid all

night in the chimney. When the mob could not find Rivington himself, they attacked his

printing shop instead, damaging his press and types. Later a different angry mob hung

Rivington in effigy.”91

Just as destructive, if not more so, were the continual subscription cancellations

from around the Colonies. Many cities and counties laid blanket bans against Rivington’s

New-York Gazetteer. One city wrote in their resolves against Rivington that his paper

“uniformly persists in publishing every falsehood which his own wicked

imagination…could suggest and fabricate.” John Dickinson, writer of the famous Letters

from a Pennsylvania Farmer, said that Rivington’s paper promulgated “notorious lies.”

Samuel Adams called on all Americans to ignore the “false assertions and lying extracts

of letters, published in Rivington’s Paper, designed to aggravate the sufferings and render

odious the oppressed town of Boston.”92

143

Rather than be frightened by such animosity, the printer fought even more

spitefully. Rivington bitterly argued that his crime was “neither more or less, than the

keeping a free press, in a land of Liberty.” Disgusted with the patriots and their

hypocritical actions, he again asserted that his press “has been open to publications from

ALL PARTIES” and defied his “enemies to produce an instance to the contrary.” He felt it was unfair that “the moment he ventured to publish sentiments which were opposed to the dangerous views and designs of certain demagogues, he found himself held up as an enemy to this country.” He accused the patriots of the “most cruel tyranny,” and hoped all

Americans would soon see the “difference between being governed by a few factious

individuals, and the GOOD OLD LAWS AND CONSTITUTION, under which we have

so long been a happy people.93

Despite all his protestations and past history of maintaining neutrality, the facts

were undeniable: Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer had effectively become a Tory

newspaper. Rivington still printed a few patriot articles, but they were short and half-

hearted. Further show of the printer’s bias, Rivington began including smaller cuts of the

kings arms to highlight articles he found important.94

In December 1774, the Colonists, “warm in the American cause,” called for a second Continental Congress to decide, “what will be done.” The news fulfilled Holt’s dearest wishes. The Colonies were, once and for all, joined in a common goal. The printer proudly changed his masthead engraving once more, this time to a connected snake, symbolizing the unified Colonies (see fig. 14).95

144

Figure 14 United snake engraving, found in New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser

The snake encircled a pillar topped by a liberty cap and held up by the words,

“MAGNA CHARTA.” It is supported by 12 arms and hands. Isaiah Thomas explained that the arms in the symbol represented the different Colonies, holding up the laws of the land, as dictated by the Magna Charta. On the body of the snake is engraved the following poem, beginning at the snake’s head:

United now, alive and free, Firm on this basis Liberty shall stand, And, thus supported, ever bless our land Till Time becomes Eternity.96

Holt pushed for the Colonies to join together for so long, it probably felt as if the printer’s dearest hopes had all been realized. England had tried to keep the Colonies separate from each other, and had struck at them individually. Somehow, like the legend that inspired Holt’s original divided snake engraving, America pulled itself back together and was now stronger than ever before.

145

Predictably, Rivington was less than impressed with the New York Journal’s new

design. He could not pass up the opportunity to sneer at his competitor’s new symbol in

the next edition of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer. The poem is as much evidence of the

significance of masthead engravings as it is an example of Rivington’s loathing for Holt:

‘Tis true Johnny Holt you have caused us some pain, By changing our Head-piece again and again: But then to your praise it may justly be said, You have giv’n us a notable Tail-piece instead. ‘Tis true, that the Arms of a good British King Have been forced to give way to a Snake – with a Sting;

Which some would interpret as tho’ it implied That the King by the wound of that Serpent had died. But now must their Malice all sink into Shade, By the happy device which you lately displayed; And Tories themselves be convinced you are slandered Who see you’ve erected the Right Royal Standard!97

While the jab showed how much Rivington believed masthead engravings signified the position of printers, it did nothing to phase Holt. In fact, there isn’t even any proof Holt bothered to respond to Rivington’s joke. The printer was too preoccupied with the happiness he felt. He believed, like his masthead engraving suggests, that the

Colonies were entirely “United now, alive and free.”

Holt’s immovable faith in the complete unity of America is hard to imagine, especially since proof of the contrary was printed just three blocks away from his own

shop. The blatant Tory opinions in Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer were proof that not

all Colonials agreed with the patriot cause. One contributor to Rivington’s newspaper

even compared the rebels to Satan himself. The article reminded patriots that their only

“danger will arise from your failing to attain the end you aim at. In that case you will

indeed be rebels, and may chance to be hanged. If you succeed, it will only be a

146

revolution, and you will be justified before God and man.” The writer concluded by pointing out, “Nothing, my friends, was wanting to make Lucifer’s rebellion in Heaven a glorious revolution, but success.”98

The blood spilt at Lexington in mid-April 1775 polarized the Colonials even

further. News of the skirmish reached New York within days. British troops and

Lexington militiamen had fired upon each other, leaving eight Americans dead. Instantly,

the Colonies were once again up in arms, including most New Yorkers. Even Hugh

Gaine, who had not participated in any political conflicts since before the Boston

Massacre, felt that now was the time to pick a side.

Lieutenant Governor Cadwallader Colden, knowing Gaine’s temperate political

views, hoped to quell some of the outrage in the city by asking the printer to publish the

official British army report of the Lexington affair. Gaine agreed, on the condition that he

could also publish the source of the report. By the next day, however, he changed his

mind—why, he would not say, but Colden speculated that his decision was based on a

visit from John Hancock and Samuel Adams, in town from Massachusetts, who

undoubtedly strong-armed the printer.99

It is also likely that the patriot’s treatment of Rivington influenced Gaine in his

decision to refuse the article. Gaine, whose print shop was on the same block as

Rivington’s press, could not have failed to see the damage left by the mobs that

periodically attacked Rivington’s business. He also could not help but see how frequently

angry patriots came to threaten Rivington while he was hard at work.100

Gaine realized the time for diplomatic neutrality had ended. As one writer in his

paper put it, now was:

147

…no Time now to dally, or be merely neutral, he that is not for us, is against us, and ought to feel the first of our Resentment. You must now declare most explicitly, one way or the other… for we can but perish, and that we are determined upon, or be free.101

Gaine aligned himself with the patriot cause. He continued to use the solidly

American masthead engraving of New York Province’s coat of arms that had graced the

top of the New-York Mercury since 1768. If Gaine’s sympathies had been questionable

before, he left no room for doubt now. Every week he related stories of American bravery

and goodness in the war that now raged between England and the Colonies. He laced every defeat heavily with American heroics, most of the time describing the patriot troops

as outnumbered but stoic, beating back thousands with only a few hundred militiamen.

Across the street, Rivington’s editorial policies went the other direction. He stopped bothering to even summarize patriot accounts. On August 17, 1775, he pulled the words “OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS” from his masthead. Left to stand as the sole decoration of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, the king’s arms now pointed directly to where the printer’s own loyalties laid: with the King of England.

If either printer’s confidence in the side he now backed was even slightly shaky, all doubt ceased after the events of November 20, 1775. That afternoon under the hot sun,

75 armed men on horseback galloped down Main Street in New York and surrounded

Rivington’s shop. A portion of their number entered the shop and, while the others stood guard, brought out the many cases holding Rivington’s expensive printing type. Most of the small metal letters were scattered across the dusty street. Just to be sure he would not be able to find a complete set of the precious types, the mob took a part of them and

148

melted them into bullets. The men then rode off singing “Yankee Doodle,” leaving

Rivington’s shop destroyed.102

The event affected both Rivington and Gaine deeply. It was, understandably, most

devastating for Rivington. By destroying the printer’s type, the mob had effectively

destroyed Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer. Type was not only essential to the process of

printing; it was also incredibly expensive. Thanks to the hordes of Americans who

cancelled their subscriptions to Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer during the previous

months, purchasing new type sets was all but impossible. The mob’s actions chased away

any patriotic inclinations he might have felt for the Colonies and left Rivington bitter and

hardened. He sailed for England shortly after this event. When he returned two years later

to New York, he did so with a vengeance. All thoughts of an unbiased press were gone.

The mob had cured him of any desire to do anything but lash out at the patriots.103

Gaine, whose shop was close enough to Rivington’s for him to personally witness the destruction of Rivington’s types in 1775, saw first hand from his printing shop’s window the price paid by Tory printers. He started publishing news favorable to the patriots immediately. He declared King George III a tyrant and the British soldiers monsters. One account, signed “Your Friend and Countryman,” claimed that the British regulars stationed around the Colonies had slaughtered a woman and her seven children with no provocation whatsoever. The writer said that the troops marked “their Way with

Cruelties and Barbarity never equaled by the Savages of America.” Gaine even went so far as to print propaganda to sway British soldiers to the patriot side, including accounts of whole regiments—heroes!—who refused to fight the Americans. Other articles were written to guilt the English soldiers into desertion, reading, “Gentlemen, You are about to

149

embark for America, to compel your fellows subjects there to submit to …

SLAVERY.”104

Few equaled Gaine’s printed excitement when news of the Declaration of

Independence found its way to New York on July 15, 1776. He printed the entire

document on the front page of the New-York Mercury, giving it the honored placement he once reserved for declarations by the King. Gaine reported the document was

“everywhere received with the utmost Demonstrations of Joy.” All over New York, the

people celebrated by destroying reminders of America’s old ties to Britain. Having no

royal symbol to destroy himself, (Gaine’s New-York Mercury was still topped by an

engraving of the coat of arms for New York), the printer contented himself by cheerfully

printing an account of the demolition of an equestrian statue of George III. The statue

“was thrown from its Pedestal and broken in Pieces; and we hear the Lead wherewith this

Monument was made, is to be run into Bullets.”105

Such joy was short lived, however. Gaine did his best to put a positive spin on the news during the next few months, but the truth was undeniable: the Americans were losing the war. They were outnumbered and outmatched, and no matter how many times

Gaine described the American troops as nearly-victorious, they could never seem to actually come out on top.106

Fear began to creep into both New York and Gaine’s newspaper in fall 1777. The

printer could see out his shop’s window a fleet of British warships waiting just off the

shore of the city, and 1,500 British soldiers landed on Long Island.The situation was dire

enough that George Washington had requested women, children, and the infirm to leave

150

the city immediately. Gaine was justly worried. He wrote dismally, “Every Tide we expect an Attack will be made on this City from the piratical Fleet at Staten-Island.”107

Within weeks, most of the inhabitants of New York fled the city, including Gaine

and his young family, who made their way to Newark, New Jersey. Gaine took with him

a press and some type, leaving a workman in charge of his New York shop, and

continued to print the New-York Mercury, if a little less zealously. The printer’s personal

defeat is easily felt through his writing. “We hear there are no more than one thousand of

the king’s troops now in New-York,” he wrote September 21 from Newark.

The arrival of the troops was a blow to Gaine. Suddenly, America was no longer

in a philosophical battle with England—the fight was very real. Never had the future

seemed so uncertain. In late September 1777, the final nail was driven into Gaine’s

despair. Late one night from his home in Newark, the printer saw “a most dreadful fire”

burning in the distance. When day broke, it was agreed that it must be “the city of New

York in flames.” Gaine could only assume his business and home had gone up in smoke

with the rest of the city.108

Gaine’s writing at this point was despondent and shell-shocked. He continued to print what pro-American news he could, but his enthusiasm was gone. Then, something remarkable occurred. Two separate editions of the New-York Mercury appeared during the same week—one that Gaine printed in Newark, and another that someone else published from New York. It must have been a shock when Gaine compared the two newspapers side by side, each claiming to be “printed by Hugh Gaine.” His own was, as usual, full of patriot news. The other edition published by the mystery printer contained only pro-British news.109

151

Startling as this occurrence was, it told Gaine two things. First, his shop and

presses in New York were still intact. The fire that had ravaged the city had not destroyed

them. Second, and even more important, the soldiers occupying New York were leaving

whoever had printed this second edition alone.

These realizations gave Gaine much to consider. He and his family were safe for

now, but what about later? Rumors were spreading that British troops planned to attack

New Jersey soon. The only trade Gaine knew was printing, and the limited supplies he

brought with him were dwindling fast. Worst of all, the American troops failed to inspire

any real confidence. It seemed almost certain Britain would prevail. What then, if he

spent the war years lobbying against the Crown?110

Meanwhile, the mystery printer of New York was safely publishing away in

Gaine’s old shop, unmolested and unafraid. It seemed as though only one option was left for Gaine. On November 1 under the cover of night, while the ragamuffin Colonial Army retreated from the British at White Plains, he and his defeated family returned to New

York.111

Gaine quickly discovered what happened during his absence. One of the printer’s journeymen had left the printing shop’s door unlocked in his hurry to escape the city, and when the troops marched in, they took over his press to publish their own ideas. In charge was Ambrose Serle, private secretary to the British Admiral Lord Howe. Serle made his political beliefs blatantly known. In his first edition, published September 30, he counteracted Gaine’s established patriotism by slurring the Colonists, calling them

“misguided Americans,” and the Declaration of Independence “extravagant” and

“inadmissible.” Serle’s opinion of the British government dripped with deference. George

152

III is “most graciously disposed” to resolving the spoiled Colonists’ concerns amicably and his soldiers are cast as protectors of peace.112

Gaine bargained with the British authorities, promising to print for the British if they would only let him take his shop back. They agreed, and let him resume his work under Serle’s watchful eye. At first, Gaine was somewhat unsure of how to proceed.

Instead of political news, he mingled inconsequential articles concerned with lady’s hats and dancing with news from the war. As the weeks wore on, Serle and the other British officials leaned more heavily on the printer, forcing him to publish their propaganda.

News and official reports from Longon quickly began filling the pages that had so recently touted American news. Colonial soldiers were called “Rebels,” and “lawless

Free-booters.” American leaders spread “Absurdities and Falsehoods” meant to “keep up the Spirits and Opposition of their deluded followers.”113

From that time forward till the end of the war, Gaine supported Britain vehemently. Soon he followed Serle’s lead and began printing lengthy lists of New York citizens who declared their allegiance to the King, sometimes pages long, along with a proclamation absolving any Colonist who swore their loyalty to Britain.

Gaine announced his own allegiance officially on Monday, January 6, 1777, when he added the cut of the King’s arms back into his masthead. The cut is large, splitting the name in two. The execution of the design was well done. Most prints came off the press cleanly, with very little smudging, suggesting a professionally cut engraving. It is present in the title in every subsequent edition.

The choice to include this cut at that exact moment is too symbolic to be a coincidence. Unlike Holt, Gaine had not included the cut while on the American side of

153

the conflict. While printing revolutionary stories and ideas, he maintained his written and pictorial stance. Once he crossed over to the British, however, it was not enough to change simply the phrases he used or the slant he chose to employ. He had to remove the

Colonial cut of New York’s arms and substitute it for something solidly English – something that would leave no doubt as to where his loyalties lay. There could be no better symbol than the King’s coat of arms to accomplish that goal.

Gaine was mocked and reprimanded heavily for his change of heart. Patriot printers around the country – Gaine’s former allies – bitterly accused him of treachery.

The Pennsylvania Journal asked acidly, “Who is the greatest liar upon earth? Hugh

Gaine, of New York, printer.” The Pennsylvania Packet, or the General Advertiser ran an advertisement printed as if from Gaine himself:

Printed and sold by Hugh Lucre, under the inspection and by permission of martial authority, in New York… at the sign of the Crown against the Bible, where all persons may be supplied with False Intelligence for hard money, and with Truth upon no terms whatsoever.114

Philip Freneau, poet, wrote that Gaine “always adheres to the sword that is

longest, and stick to the party that’s like to be strongest.” Even Thomas Paine, famed

writer of Common Sense (Gaine himself had printed and sold many copies of the

pamphlet), took a potshot at the turncoat printer. In the second of his Crisis essays, Paine

sarcastically commented on the New-York Mercury’s obvious London ties. “We can tell

by Hugh Gaine’s New York paper what the complexion of the London Gazette is.”115

When the war ended Gaine was, understandably, less than a favorite of the new

government. Distrusted, ridiculed, and widely disliked, Gaine discontinued The New-

York Mercury and lived the rest of his life quietly as a bookseller in the city.

154

Thus ended all early attempts to keep a New York newspaper free from bias. Holt,

Rivington, and Gaine all tried to stay impartial, and all failed miserably, for all different reasons. They marked each choice and pledged their loyalties through both the words they printed and the masthead engravings they chose. One chose to desert the cause of a free press for true patriotic feeling, as depicted by his snake masthead designs. One traded objectivity for a chance to bitterly seek revenge on those who had wronged him, and showed his loyalty to the Crown by inserting the King’s coat of arms. The last gave up neutrality to keep his family safe from physical and financial harm, and changed an

American symbol for a British one in attempts to convince the English armies he was a

Tory. All three learned one unequivocal lesson: there was no place for nonpartisan printing in New York during the American Revolution.

155

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Historians are right to assert that Colonial printers played an essential role in the coming about of the American Revolution. These men provided a forum of ideas that spread throughout the Colonies and united the Americans like nothing before. Through

newspapers, people from around the Colonies shared stories of bravery and defiance with each other. The people of South Carolina were able to commiserate with the plight of the

Bostonians, and the people of Connecticut could read the Pennsylvanians’ arguments against taxation.

These newspapers gave voice to the many who were disenchanted with England and its ministers. Within their pages came the first grumblings, followed by daring suggestions for true resistance, and finally tales of the bold, outright rebellion of the patriots of America. Without these newspapers and their printers, it is arguable that the

Revolution may never have taken place, and indeed many historians have made that claim.1

Historians have overlooked important facts in their evaluation of these printers,

however. Most pigeonhole these men into either “patriot” or “loyalist” categories,

without examining the many contradictory evidences available. They group the printers together according to their ending affiliations, ignoring the many life events and years

that preceded the printer’s final dedication to one side or the other.

These labels are easy to place on early American printers, given the many

passionate essays and heated debates they published. By focusing solely on the words

156

printed in Colonial newspapers, however, historians have ignored the fact that most essays were not written by the printers themselves. While the printers did choose which articles to publish and which to ignore, it is highly likely that the words of the newspaper’s contributors did not always perfectly square with the printer’s own beliefs.

A printer could easily have published an essay either more strongly or more weakly phrased than his own sentiments. The words contained in these articles, then, may be misleading as to the printer’s actual political affiliation at any given moment.

The printers did control what engraving graced their mastheads each week.

Despite the fact that the printers frequently chose political symbols, historians have ignored these masthead designs and therefore missed an opportunity for a deeper understanding of these men. Some did, as the history books suggest, fight for the

American cause from 1765 onward. Others were more hesitant. A few tried to treat both sides of the conflict fairly. The symbols they employed show that none of them were

“devoted…wholeheartedly” to one cause from beginning to end.2

More than 200 years later, it is easy to get wrapped up in the romance of the

American Revolution and overlook how impossibly difficult the years leading up to it must have been for those who lived them. The thought of independence was frightening in more than one way. Failure meant the loss of thousands of American lives at the hands of the most powerful military in the world. Even more unnerving, success meant leaving the Colonies’ future in the hands of a fledgling, untested government.

The Colonies’ final decision to break away from England was not made lightly or quickly. It took years before any of the Americans, the printers included, chose a side.

Hundreds of factors influenced their decisions: what was happening in their businesses,

157

their personal lives, their families, the attitudes prevailing in their cities and towns, mob behavior.

In the case of at least these nine Colonial printers, each step along the path toward a final political affiliation is marked by their choice of masthead engravings. The engravings alone do not tell the whole story of these printers, but they are a good indicator of when the printer’s political feelings began to sway. Each time a printer inserted or deleted a British symbol from his masthead, or commissioned a new politically charged design, he consciously pledged his allegiance to either America or

Britain. The attention they gave the changes in each other’s engravings also shows how conscious they were of the implications of their own designs.

The pattern most printers followed of inserting, deleting and reinserting the designs over a period of years suggests an evolution of thought. These men were not steadfast in one cause from beginning to end. In fact, most never dreamed in 1765 that a decade later the interests of America and Britain would be so divided as to force them to choose between the two.

When the symbolic changes in newspaper’s mastheads are used as guides to the lives of these printers, a stark portrait of humanity appears. No longer are they one- dimensional champions or inhibiters of American independence. Their characters are fleshed out, and the complications of their lives seem more real. The decisions they made were not easy ones. Those who chose to rebel went through a truly revolutionary transition. The printers began by fighting for their rights as Englishmen, and ended by fighting England. Those who remained loyal to the King made their choice after many hardships, and in some cases, only out of desperation. The years between 1765 and the

158

end of the war forced these men to constantly evaluate and revaluate their beliefs. Each

time they began to lean towards one side or the other, they marked their choice symbolically with a masthead engraving.

American Revolutionary War newspaper masthead engravings are an important and necessary clue to understanding Colonial printers. When these symbols and their contextual implications are ignored, historians risk unfairly typecasting the printers.

When the engravings are included in the study of the printer’s lives and their newspapers, a portrait of humanity appears. The engravings serve as guideposts in the evolution the printers went through before declaring their ultimate allegiance. They become human, rather than names tied to interesting anecdotes that fit neatly on a library bookshelf. Their

lives become clearer, and the problems they faced hit home.

Limitations and Suggested Further Research

As with all histories, this thesis cannot pretend to represent every aspect of the

experiences had by those living at the time of the American Revolution. The study cannot

be generalized to all Colonial printers. Personal accounts were not always available, and despite the researcher’s best efforts to quote only reliable sources, some original material

may be biased.

No surviving documents written by the printers explaining why they chose certain

masthead engravings were found during the course of this study. This limitation makes it

impossible to fully prove that the printers chose the symbols as a representation of their

own beliefs. As with the study of all iconography, the interpretation of political symbols

is a slightly subjective process. The researcher attempted to combat these inherent flaws

by backing up all claims of symbolic meaning with contemporary interpretations of the

159

symbols and logical explanations for their uses. Conclusions were reached based on comparing content to symbols. In each case, the content supported the change in symbols.

Despite this, some interpretations may be unintentionally erroneous.

Future research could expand this study to include more Colonial newspapers. It would also be enlightening to broaden the study of early American newspaper cuts beyond masthead engravings to include other symbols used by these printers.

160

Appendix A

James Rivington was a favorite target for the popular poet Phillip Freneau, who published many imagined dialogs between Rivington and Satan. A small selection of Freneau’s poems is included below.

“Epigram Occasioned by the title of Rivington’s Royal Gazette Being Scarcely Legible,” Says Satan to Jemmy, I hold you a bet, That you mean to abandon our Royal Gazette, Or, between you and me, you would manage things better, Than the Title to print on so damned a Letter.

Now being connected so long in the art, It would not be prudent at present to part; And people perhaps would be frighten’d and fret If the devil alone carry’d on the Gazette.

Says Jemmy to Satan (by way of a wipe) Who gives me the matter should furnish the type. And why you find fault I can scarcely divine, For the types, like the Printer, are certainly thine.

‘tis yours to deceive with the semblance of truth, Thou friend of my age, and thou guide of my youth! But to prosper, pray send me some further supplies, A sett of new Types, and a sett of new Lies. -M.1

“Lines Occasioned By Mr. Rivington’s New Titular Types to this Royal Gazette, of Feb. 27.” Well now (said the devil) it looks something better! Your title is struck on a charming new Letter: Last night in the dark I gave it a squint I saw my dear partner had taken the hint. I ever surmis’d (though ‘twas doubted by some) That the old types were shadows of substance to come. But if the NEW LETTER is pregnant with charms, It grieves me to think of those cursed King’s Arms; The Dieu et mon droit (his God and his right) Is so dim that I hardly know what is meant by’d; The paws of the Lion can scarcely be seen, And the Unicorn’s guts are most shameful lean!

161

The Crown is so worn of your master the Despot, That I hardly know whether ‘tis a crown or a pisspot)— When I rub up my ay-lights, and look very sharp, I just can distinguish the Irishman’s Harp; Another device appears rather silly, Alas! It is only the shade of the LILLY! For the honor of George, and the same of our nation, Pray give his escutcheons a rectification— Or I know what I know (and I’m a quer shaver) Of HIM and his Arms I’ll be the In-grave-r.2

“Truth Anticipated: A Rivingtonian Dialogue” What rilliant events have of late come to pass, No less than the capture of Monsieur de Grasse! His majesty’s printer has told it for true, As we had it from him, so we give it to you.

Many folks of discernment the story believed, And the devil himself it at first had deceived, Had it not been that Satan imported the stuff, And signed it George Rodney, by way of high proof

Said Satan to Jemmy, “Let’s give them the whoppers- Some news I have got that will bring in the coppers, And truth it shall be, though I pass it for lies, And making a page of your newspaper size.

A wide field is open to favour my plan And the rebels may prove that I lie—if they can; Since they jested and laughed at our lying before, Let it pass for a lie, to torment them the more. … Thus, pleased with the motion, each cutting a caper, Down they sat at the table, with pen, ink, and paper; In less than five minutes the matter was stated, And Jemmy turned scribe, while Satan dictated.3

162

Beginning Ending Month Year Newspaper Years Printer(s) Years Affiliation Affiliation Engravings First Appearance 1764-1810 Thomas Green 1764-1769 Patriot Patriot heart and crown December 1764 Ebenezer Watson 1767-1777 king's arms December 1767 George Goodwin 1777-1779 none August 1770 Barzillai Hudson 1779-1810 king's arms December 1770 Connecticut Current none July 1772 King's arms July 1772 none September 1775 Connecticut Arms January 1776 Conn. arms w/soldier January 1778 1752-1783 Hugh Gaine 1752-1783 Unaffiliated Loyal king's arms November 1762 Mercury 1763 New York Mercury NY arms king's arms January 1777 1734-1800 Lewis Timothy 1734-1738 Loyal Patriot none January 1731 Peter Timothy 1740-1772 kings arms July 1765 Thomas Powell 1772-1775 black 5-Apr 1770 Peter Timothy 1775-1780 kings arms 5-Apr 1770 South Carolina Gazette Anne Timothy 1782-1792 none September 1772 King's arms November 1773 none 27-Mar 1775 Appendix B King's arms 3-Apr 1775 none September 1775 1767-1773 William Goddard 1767-1773 Loyal Patriot king's arms January 1767 Pennsylvania Chronicle Joseph Galloway 1767-1770 none January 1771 Thomas Wharton 1767-1770 1755-1798 Benjamin Edes 1768-1798 Patriot Patriot Indian April 1755 both April 1755 John Gill 1768-1775 Liberating bird April 1756 Boston Gazette August 1758 January 1766 Liberty January 1770 1773-1783 Jimmy Rivington 1773-1783 Unaffiliated Loyal none 18-Mar 1773 ship 23-Apr 1773 Rivington's New York Gazetteer none 3-Nov 1774 king's arms 10-Nov 1774 1760-1798 ? Parker 1760-1766 Unaffiliated Patriot none 1760 New York Journal king's arms John Holt 1766-1784 snake by Jan 1775 1758-1810 James Franklin 1758-1762 Patriot Patriot ship June 1758 Anne Franklin 1762-1763 King's arms February 1760 Samuel Hall 1762-1768 none April 1762 New Port Mercury Solomon Southwick 1768-1781 King's arms 17-Feb 1766 kings arms December 1769 province arms by November 1780 1765-1775 Charles Crouch 1765-1775 Patriot Patriot king's arms December 1765 South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal August 1775

-Endnotes-

Chapter 1

1 Arthur Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence: the Newspaper War on Britain, 1764- 1776 (New York: Vintage Books, 1965) 225. The South Carolina Provincial Congress made this famous insult in a plea they printed in the local newspapers urging the citizens of their province to cancel their subscriptions to Rivington’s newspaper. Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 266; Isaiah Thomas. History of Printing in America (Albany: Joel Munsell, 1874), 2:121; Philip Davidson. Propaganda and the American Revolution 1763-1783 (Durham, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), 171; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 227; Thomas. History of Printing, 2:275. 2 Yvonne Korshak, “The Liberty Cap as a Revolutionary Symbol in America and France,” Smithsonian Studies in American Art 1, (1987): 60. 3 Thomas. History of Printing, 2:94, 116.

Chapter 2

1 Frank Luther Mott. American Journalism (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965), 87-94; Francis G. Walett. Patriots, Loyalists and Printers (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1976) 25; Sidney Kobre. The Development of the Colonial Newspaper (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1960), vi; Eric Burns. Infamous Scribblers (New York: Public Affairs, 2006). 2 James Melvin Lee. History of American Journalism (Garden City, NY: The Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., 1923) 84; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 236; Dana R. Ulloth, Peter L. Klinge, and Sandra Eells. Mass Media: Past, Present, Future (New York: West Publishing Company, 1983), 24; Peter C. Marzio. The Men and Machines of American Journalism (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of History and Technology, 1973), 24; Fred Blevens, “Publishers,” in American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices, ed. Wm. David Sloan and Lisa Mullikin Parcell (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2002), 99; Stephen Botein, “Printers and the American Revolution,” in The Press and the American Revolution, ed. Bernard Bailyn and John B. Hench (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1980), 99; Burns. Infamous Scribblers, 136- 137. 3 Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, July 17, 1775; Ibid., September 5, 1768; Ibid., November 9, 1767; Davidson. Propaganda; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence; Clarence S. Brigham. Paul Revere’s Engravings (New York: Atheneum, 1969); Thomas. History of Printing, 2:53-54; Ibid., 2:82. 4 Ibid., 2:118; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 189; Wm. David Sloan, ed. The Media in America: A History (Northport, AL: Vision Press, 2005) 59. 5 Ibid., 59; New York Journal, Jan. 5, 1775. See Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 189. 6 William Goddard. The Partnership: or the History of the Rise and Progress of the Pennsylvania Chronicle (Philadelphia: William Goddard, 1770).

164

7 Davidson. Propaganda, 233; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence; Thomas. History of Printing in America (New York: Weathervane Books, 1970) 322. 8 South Carolina Gazette, January 8, 1732; Robert M. Weir, “The Role of the Newspaper Press in the Southern Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution: An Interpretation,” in The Press and the American Revolution, ed. Bailyn and Hench, 105; Davidson. Propaganda, 232; Thomas. History of Printing, 2:171; Jeffery A. Smith. “Impartiality and Revolutionary Ideology: Editorial Policies of the South-Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775,” The Journal of Southern History 49 (November 1983): 526, 513. 9 E. Wilder Spaulding. “The Connecticut Courant, a Representative Newspaper in the Eighteenth Century,” The New England Quarterly 3 (July 1930): 450-452. 10 Edwin Emery. The Press and America: an interpretive history of the mass media (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 91; Mott. American Journalism, 84-86; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 222-225; Walett. Patriots, Loyalists and Printers, 35. 11 Ibid., 36-37; Ulloth. Mass Media, 24-25; Walett. Patriots, Loyalists and Printers, 36- 37; Silas Bent. Newspaper Crusaders: A Neglected Story (New York: Whittlesey House, 1939), 94-05; Sloan. Media in America, 59. 12 See Davidson. Propaganda; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence; Thomas. History of Printing, 2:109; Mott. American Journalism, 83; Bruce J. Evensen. “Objectivity” in American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices, ed. W. David Sloan and Lisa Mullikin Parcell, 259; Botein. “Printers and the American Revolution,” 37. 13 Alfred Lorenz, Hugh Gaine: A Colonial Printer-Editor’s Odyssey to Loyalism. (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972). 14Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 226; Davidson. Propaganda, 69-72; Thomas, History of Printing, 2:107. 15 Peter C. Marzio. The Men and Machines, 36. 16 Connecticut Courant, July 28, 1772; Lawrence C. Wroth. The Colonial Printer (Charlottesville: Dominion Books, 1938), 90. Thomas. History of Printing, 2:63; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 53. 17 Wroth. The Colonial Printer, 169-170. 18 Ibid., 170-179. 19 Clarence P. Hornung and Fridolf Johnson. 200 Years of American Graphic Art, (New York: G. Braziller, 1976), 5-6; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 58. The idea of inking type by use of a roller was not realized until about 1829. 20 Ibid., 22. 21 Carl W. Drepperd. Early American Prints (New York: The Century Co., 1930), 5. See also John W. Moore. Printers, Printing, Publishing, and Editing of Books, Newspapers, Magazines, and Others (New York: Burt Franklin, 1968), 83-85. The origins of this art extend far back into history. Several cultures claim the invention – China, Italy, Germany, Holland, Egypt. The Romans engraved on brass, and early Christians on thin slices of wood. Engravings have been found from ancient China using a technique that applied silk to carved wood. Some evidence suggests that engravings in Europe were done as early as 1285 or 1286. 22 Ibid., 8. Paul Revere often created his work this way. 23 Hornung, 200 Years of American Graphic Art, 5-6.

165

24 Ibid., 161, 167. 25 Ralph Frasca. Benjamin Franklin’s Printing Network: Disseminating Virtue in Early America (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006), 22; Lawrence C. Wroth. The Colonial Printer (Charlottesville: Dominion Books, 1964),156. 26 Ibid., 158. 27 Frasca. Benjamin Franklin’s Printing Network, 22-23; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 6. 28 Hornung, 200 Years of American Graphic Art, 4; Julie Hedgepeth Williams. The Significance of the Printed Word in Early America: Colonists’ Thoughts on the Role of the Press (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1999), 17-19; Frasca. Benjamin Franklin’s Printing Network, 49; Davidson. Propaganda, 209; Williams. The Significance of the Printed Word, 17-19. As early as 1639, public schools supported directly by taxes were established. Harvard was founded soon after this date with the help of John Harvard, who donated a considerable amount of money and nearly 400 volumes of written works to the school. 29 Arthur Benedict Berthold. American Colonial Printing as Determined by Contemporary Cultural Forces 1639-1763 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 10; Williams, The Significance of the Printed Word, 194; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 54. 30 Williams, The Significance of the Printed Word, 192. 31 Davidson, Propaganda, 235; David A. Copeland. Colonial American Newspapers: Character and Content (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1997), 18-21; see also David A. Copeland. Debating the Issues in Colonial Newspapers (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000). 32 Blevens, “Publishers,” 99; Stephen Botein, “Printers and the American Revolution,” 11; David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1789), II:319 as cited in Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, vii. 33 Emery, The Press and America, 87. 34 Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 4; see also Davidson. Propaganda, xv, 40-43. Even after war broke out in 1775 and a fight for independence seemed inescapable, it still took the colonies more than a year to act. Davidson suggested that the reason behind this was that there were still many in the colonies hoping to reconcile with England. 35 Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 10-11, 20, 52, 68. 36 Charles M. Andrews. The Colonial Background of the American Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969) 125, 133; Thomas, History of Printing, 2:54. 37 Ibid., 6; Stephen Botein, “Meer Mechanics’ and an Open Press: The Business and Political Strategies of Colonial American Printers,” Perspectives in American History, IX (1975), 127-225 in Jeffery A. Smith. “Impartiality and Revolutionary Ideology: Editorial Policies of the South-Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775,” The Journal of Southern History 49 (1983): 512. 38 T.H. Breen. The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Hornung, 200 Years of American Graphic Art, 43; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 5. 39 Jeffery A. Smith. Printers and Press Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 20; Leonard W. Levy. Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History:

166

Legacy of Suppression (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), 11; Smith, Printers and Press Freedom, 22. 40 Ibid., 22-23. See also Pauline Maier. “John Wilkes and American Disillusionment with Britain,” The William and Mary Quarterly 20 (1963): 373-395. 41 James Parker, Connecticut Courant, April 12, 1755; Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 46, vii. 42 Davidson. Propaganda, xiii, 410. 43 Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 42-43; Drepperd. Early American Prints, 22. 44 Davidson. Propaganda, 173. 45 Jordan. “Familial Politics,” 17; Marzio. Men and Machines, 30-31. The first cut used in America to illustrate a news article appeared in The Boston News-Letter on January 26, 1707. It displayed the newly redesigned English flag. See also Michael Wynn Jones. The Cartoon History of the American Revolution (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1975), 11; Herbert M. Atherton. Political Prints in the Age of Hogarth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974); Lester C. Olson. Emblems of American Community in the Revolutionary Era: a Study in Rhetorical Iconology (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991); Amelia Rauser. “Death or Liberty: British Political prints and the Struggle for Symbols in the American Revolution” Oxford Art Journal 21 (1998): 153-171. Rauser described the slow shift in symbolic references used by English engravers. She described the progression of English prints and how the images standing for freedom were transferred symbolically from English emblems to American ones. The glory of liberty, which had once been claimed by England as the most free country in the world, was slipping away from the Britons. America had replaced her as liberty’s protector and champion on the page as well as in the minds of the artists of London. 46 Lawrence C. Wroth and Marion W. Adams. American Woodcuts and Engravings, 1670-1800 (Providence: The Associates of The John Carter Brown Library, 1946), 11; Brigham. Paul Revere’s Engravings, ix; R.T.H. Halsey. “Prints Relating to Early American History,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26 (July 1931) 164; R.T. Haines Halsey. “Early Engravings in Colonial Houses,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 19 (August 1924) 196, 198. 47 Ibid., 17-22; Marzio, The Men and Machines, 30-31. 48 The notable exception is Paul Revere’s “Boston Massacre,” an engraving reprinted often around the Colonies during the five years before the Revolutionary War began. Davidson. Propaganda, 14; Hornung, 200 Years of American Graphic Art, 23-24; Davidson. Propaganda, 187. 49 Hornung, 200 Years of American Graphic Art, 23-24; Davidson, Propaganda, 187. 50 Thomas, History of Printing, 2:50. 51 Atherton, Political Prints in the Age of Hogarth, 89-91. 52 Ibid., 89-93. 53 Ibid., 94; Korshak, “The Liberty Cap as a Revolutionary Symbol,” 53-54. 54 Olson, Emblems of American Community, 26-27. It was also suggested that a snake made a good symbolic fit for the Colonies, given that their long, strip-like geography corresponded to the long body of a snake. 55 Ibid.,, 13, 22.

167

56 Jordan. “Familial Politics: Thomas Paine and the Killing of the King, 1776,” The Journal of American History 60 (1973); Edmund F. Slaftner, “Royal arms and other regal emblems and memorials in use in the colonies before the American Revolution,” paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston (1889). 57 Eugene Zieber. Heraldry in America (New York: Greenwich House, 1895) 227; Neubecker, Ottfried. A Guide to Heraldry (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1979) 67; Roger Milton. Heralds and History (London: David & Charles, 1978) 18. 58 Maryland Gazette, Aug. 1, 1776, as cited in Winthrop, “Familial Politics”; New- England Chronicle, July 18, 1776, as cited in Winthrop, “Familial Politics.” Years later, Governor Thomas Hutchinson recalled in his diary being told by a “sociable American” that after the lead statue had been toppled, the crowd melted it down and cast it into bullets. “And then he added—‘And we returned the statue to the British again.’” See The Diary and Letters of his Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., ed. Peter Orlando Hutchinson (London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1883), 520-521. 59 Arthur S Marks, “The Statue of King George III in New York and the Iconology of Regicide,” American Art Journal 13 (Summer, 1981); Abigail Adams to John Adams, July 21, 1776, in The Adams Papers, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1963),56. 60 America’s “Wood Engravers Network” and Great Britain’s “Society of Wood Engravers” have both generated interest in the art form in recent years. See their websites: http://www.woodengravers.co.uk/index.html and http://www.woodengravers.net. Halsey. “Prints Relating to Early American History,” 164-168; Durham Art Gallery, “Art & Artists, Museums & Galleries, Exhibitions,” 2006; Bridget L. Goodbody, “The Line on the Revolution, From Those Who Drew It,” The New York Times, March 16, 2007, late edition. 61 See Edwin Wolf, II. “Benjamin Franklin’s Stamp Act Cartoon,” Proceedings of the American Philosphical Society 99, (December 15, 1955) 388-396; E. McClung Fleming. “The American Image as Indian Princess 1765-1783,” Winterthur Portfolio 26 (1965) 65- 81; Beryl Kenyon De Pascual. “Keyboard and Drum Iconography: Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Fans and Brocades,” The Galpin Society Journal 52 (April 1999): 52-76; R.T. Haines Halsey. “Early Engravings in Colonial Houses,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 19, no. 8 (August 1924) 196-202. 62 Eric Homberger. “Image-making and the circulation of images: Peale, Trumbull and the founding fathers,” European Journal of American Culture 24 (2005): 18-29; Ian M. G. Quimby. “The Doolittle Engravings of the Battle of Lexington and Concord,” Winterthur Portfolio 4 (1968): 83. 63 Barbara E. Lacey. “Visual Images of Blacks in Early American Prints,” The William and Mary Quarterly 53, no. 1 (January 1996): 137-180. 64 Victor Margolin. “Rebellion, Reform, and Revolution: American Graphic Design for Social Change,” Design Issues, 5, no. 1 (Autumn 1988): 59-70. 65 Jerrilyn Green Marston. “The Abdication of George III,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 129 (1975): 133, 137. See also William D. Liddle. “’A Patriot King, or None’: Lord Bolingbroke and the American Renunciation of George III,” The Journal of American History 65 (1979): 951-970; Jordan, “Familial Politics,” 294-308. 66 Ibid., 142.

168

67 Emery, The Press and America, 91; Sloan. The Media in America, 53. 68 Thomas. History of Printing, 2:118, 12; Paulette D. Kilmer “The Press and Government” in American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices, ed. W. David Sloan and Lisa Mullikin Parcell (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2002) 24; Mott, American Journalism, 75; Kobre, The Development of the Colonial Newspaper, 166; Ulloth, Mass Media, 21. See Mott, American Journalism, 75; Kobre, The Development of the Colonial Newspaper, 166; Bent, Newspaper Crusaders, 90; Copeland, Debating the Issues, 226-228; Sloan, The Media in America, 57-63. See Wm. David Sloan. Perspectives on Mass Communication History (Hillsdale, NJ: 1991) 41-55; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991); Jonathan Daniels. They Will be Heard: America’s Crusading Newspaper Editors (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965); Mott, American Journalism, 79; Sloan, Media in America, 57; Daniels, They Will be Heard, 4, 31. 69 Bent, Newspaper Crusaders, 90; Copeland, Debating the Issues, 226-228; Sloan, The Media in America, 54-63; Daniels, They Will be Heard, 54-63; Risley, “Politics and Partisanship,” 14. See also Lee, History of American Journalism, 82-84; Bent, Newspaper Crusaders, 90; Copeland, Debating the Issues, 226-228; Sloan, The Media in America, 54-63. 70 Sloan, Perspectives on Mass Communication History, 44-46. 71 Ibid., 48-49. 72 Ibid., 49-52; Alfred F. Young. Liberty Tree: Ordinary people and the American Revolution (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 215.

Chapter 3

1 Peter Edes to Benjamin C. Edes, February 16, 1836, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston: The Massachusetts Historical Society, 1873), 174-176. 2 Peter Edes to Benjamin C. Edes, February 16, 1836, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. (Boston: The Massachusetts Historical Society, 1873), 174-176. 3 Sandra Moore, “The Boston Gazette and Country Journal: Voice of Resistance and Mouthpiece of the Revolution” (Masters thesis, University of Houston, 2005), 11. 4 Moore, “The Boston Gazette and Country Journal,” 9. 5 See Boston Gazette and Country Journal, April 1756; August 1758. 6Moore, “The Boston Gazette and Country Journal,” 19. L.H. Butterfield, ed. Diary and Autobiography of John Adams. Vol. 1. Belknap Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1961, entry for December 23, 1765, 270; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 309; Ibid., 309. Edes was so infuriated, he became one of the founding members of the secret rebel society known as the “Loyal Nine.” The nine, which included such revolutionaries as Samuel Adams and James Otis, Jr., directed mob activities of the Boston Sons of Liberty and orchestrated the attacks on the city’s tax collectors. 7 “The following are the INSTRUCTIONS voted by the Town of Newbury-Port…” SUPPLEMENT to the Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, November 4, 1765; “Messr.

169

EDES & GILL.” Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, November 4, 1765; Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, October 28, 1765. 8 Connecticut Courant, July 22, 1765; Ibid., September 23, 1765; Ibid., July 9, 1765. 9 George Champlin Mason. Reminiscences of Newport. (Newport, RI: Charles E. Hammett, Jr.; 1884) 84; “NEWPORT, November 4.” Newport Mercury, November 4, 1765; MOURER. SUPPLEMENT to the Newport MERCURY, October 28, 1765. The Newport Mercury was started in 1729 by Benjamin Franklin’s older brother, James and taken over by Samuel Hall around 1763. 10 “NEWPORT, November 4.” Newport Mercury, November 4, 1765. 11 Newport Mercury, October 28, 1765; Ibid., November 4, 1765. 12 Thomas. History of Printing, 2:173. 13 “NEW YORK, October 24.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 17, 1765. 14 Ibid.; “CITY OF NEW YORK.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 17, 1765. Mr. Hume. “OBSERVATIONS ON THE LIBERTY of the PRESS,” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 31, 1765. Calls for liberty, specifically the liberty of the press, were also printed in abundance. Before the Country Journal had been printed for one month, Crouch published the “OBSERVATIONS ON THE LIBERTY of the PRESS” in large type on the front page of his newspaper.14 The level of importance Crouch gave the essay is clear from the way the printer laid out the page. Not only was the type he used more than twice as large as the fonts used in the rest of the edition, it also was given the most prominent position on the page. In case these signs were not blatant enough to persuade his readers of this essay’s importance, Crouch also included the following headline: “Read them with Attention!” 15 South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 17, 1765. 16 Ibid. 17 Connecticut Courant, August 26, 1765; Ibid., July 9, 1765. 18 “To the Printer of the South-Carolina Gazette, and Country Journal.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 1, 1766; Boston Gazette and Country Journal, October 28, 1765. 19 “NEWPORT, November 4.” Newport Mercury, November 4, 1765. When Hall began printing the Mercury, all engravings in the nameplate were removed. The printer unfortunately did not leave behind any clues why he made this change, other than perhaps the desire to make the newspaper more his own. This theory seems most plausible, since the new nameplate was not the only design change the printer made to the Mercury. Many of the fonts were replaced, and the general format of the newspaper was altogether altered. See Newport Mercury, August 17, 1762. 20 Connecticut Courant, August 26, 1765; Ibid., July 9, 1765. 21 “From the NEW-YORK Gazette of Nov. 14.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 31, 1765. 22 “From the CONNECTICUT COURANT…” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 8, 1766; “NEW HAVEN.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 31, 1765. 23 See Connecticut Courant, December 30, 1765.

170

24 “From the NEW-YORK Gazette of November 14.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, Dec. 31, 1765. 25 [Appleton, Nathaniel]. Considerations on Slavery. Boston, Edes & Gill, 1767. 20 pp. HC Copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 10546; “Mr. Printer.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, March 18, 1766. The original poem read “Persecution” in the first line, but Crouch substituted “no assistance,” a change he thought fit “better with the Usage Carolina received in her Infant State.” 26 Newport Mercury, October 28, 1765; “BOSTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 8, 1766. 27 Sylvanus Americanus. “Mr. Holt.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 8, 1766. 28 “From the NEWPORT MERCURY.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, March 25, 1766. 29 Ibid. 30 “BOSTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, March 25, 1766. 31 See Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, January 1766. 32 SUPPLEMENT to the Newport MERCURY, October 28, 1765. 33 South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, December 17, 1765. 34 “His MAJESTY’s most gracious ANSWER.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, March 18, 1766. See also South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, March 18, 1766. 35 The Necessity of Repealing the American Stamp-Act. Boston, Edes & Gil, 1766. 31 pp. AAS copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 10402; “LONDON.” Newport Mercury, February 17, 1766; “Extract of a letter from London, dated Dec. 26.” Newport Mercury, February 17, 1766. 36 “From the PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE, of April 24, 1766.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 13, 1766; “CHARLESTOWN. May 13.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 13, 1766. 37 “From the BOSTON GAZETTE, of August 11.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, October 20, 1767. 38 C.G. Montagu. “A PROCLAMATION.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, October 20, 1767. 39 Boston Gazette and Country Journal, January 5, 1767-May 11, 1767. See Davidson, Propaganda, 145. 40 “From the BOSTON GAZETTE, of Aug. 11.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, October 20, 1767. 41 Connecticut Courant, December 21, 1767; Ibid., February 15, 1768. 42 Ibid.,December 28, 1767; Ibid., March 28, 1768. 43 Connecticut Courant, February 29, 1768. 44 George Champlin Mason. Reminiscences of Newport. (Newport, RI: Charles E. Hammett, Jr.; 1884), 84-85.Southwick’s first edition of the Newport Mercury was dated April 18, 1768. 45 “From the Gentleman’s Magazine for January 1768.” Newport Mercury, April 18, 1768. 46 “LONDON.” Newport Mercury, May 16, 1768.

171

47 A true AMERICAN. “To the FAIR SEX,” Newport Mercury, December 4, 1769; “PROVIDENCE.” Newport Mercury, December 11, 1769; “WILLIAMSBURG.” Newport Mercury, December 11, 1769. 48 “LONDON.” Newport Mercury, December 4, 1769. 49 John Watts, Speaker. “The humble ADDRESS of the council of the Province of New- York.” Newport Mercury, December 11, 1769. 50 Ibid. 51 O.A. The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, December 11, 1769; O.A. “From the BOSTON GAZETTE, of Dec. 11.” Newport Mercury, December 18, 1769. 52 Solomon Southwick. “To the great Would-be Controller of the Press in Newport, Mr. O.A.” Newport Mercury, December 18, 1769. 53 “A MESSAGE from the Assembly to the Governor, June 30, 1768.” Newport Mercury, July 4, 1768. 54 “Extract of a letter from the Right Honorable the Ear of Hillsborough, dated Whitehall, April 11, 1768.” Newport Mercury, July 4, 1768. 55 Newport Mercury, July 4, 1768, “NEW YORK, June 27.” Newport Mercury, July 4, 1768. 56 Rowe, Diary, 191 as cited in R.S. Longley “Mob Activities in Revolutionary Massachusetts,” The New England Quarterly, 6, (March, 1933), 111-118. 57 Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, September 5, 1768. See also Davidson. Propaganda, 39. 58 Brigham. Paul Revere’s Engravings, 50; New-York Gazette, or Weekly Post-Boy, May 30, 1765; No Standing Armies; Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, December 5, 1768, Broadsides, Connecticut, Vol. III, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; AMERICA. “Mess’rs EDES & GILL,” Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, December 18, 1769; Rowe, Diary, 191 as cited in Longley “Mob Activities in Revolutionary Massachusetts,” 110. 59 To William Parker, Mr. Jacob Shealfe, Mr. Jr. Sherburne, Representatives of the Town of Portsmouth in General Assembly of the Province of New Hampshire. Unsigned. Jeremy Belknap papers, Sons of Liberty records, 1766-1770 [Photocopies] 61.C133 Box 10, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. Originals available in oversize; PHILADELPHOS. “Messieurs EDES & GILL,” Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, December 25, 1769. 60 See Korshak. “The Liberty Cap as a Revolutionary Symbol,” 57. 61 “BOSTON.” Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, March 12, 1770. See also Boston. “A short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre.” Boston, Edes & Gill and Fleets, 1770. 48, 88 pp., irreg. (The plate called for by Evans does not appear in Am. Eds.) AAS copy. 62 Edes and Gill’s printing shop was at this time in King’s Street, “next to the prison house. For a map of Boston, see “Bickerstaff's Albany almanack, for the year of our Lord, 1776…” Printed by Alexr. and James Robertson., [1775] American Antiquarian Society copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 42771; The Boston Directory. Boston, Norman, 1789. 56, [1] pp., 1 map. AAS Copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 22033. 63 Pennsylvania Chronicle, March 26, 1770. 64 “BOSTON.” Newport Mercury, March 12, 1770.

172

65 Connecticut Courant, March 19, 1770. 66 SUPPLEMENT to the SOUTH-CAROLINA GAZETTE, and COUNTRY JOURNAL, April 7, 1770. 67 Ibid. 68 Crouch used a harmless, apolitical engraving of a two-headed eagle when he wished to set apart a particular story at this time. The King’s arms drop cap was not used again until June 26, 1770 to distinguish a proclamation by Governor William Bull offering a reward of 30 pounds to anyone who apprehended a gang of horse thieves. The cut wasn’t used to distinguish a proclamation or speech made by the King until a supplement on Jan., 5, 1771. See South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, September 18, 1770. 69 Alex M’Dougal. “The Address of Capt. M’Dougal, (now imprisoned in New-York).” Newport Mercury, March 5, 1770. 70 “CHARLESTOWN.” Newport Mercury, October 1, 1770. 71 Connecticut Courant, July 30, 1770; Ibid., August 6, 1770.Watson began printing with Green in 1767, but did not become the Connecticut Courant’s sole printer until Green retired in 1769. 72 Ibid., August 13, 1770. 73 Ibid., August 20, 1770. 74 Ibid., March 28, 1768; Ibid., March 7, 1768; Ibid., August 20, 1770. 75 Ibid., August 27, 1770; Newport Mercury, February 26, 1770; Ibid., February 5, 1770; Ibid., February 26, 1770. 76 “BOSTON.” Newport Mercury, March 5, 1770; “LONDON.” Newport Mercury, March 6, 1771. 77 “The Humble ADDRESS of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled…” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 10, 1770; “His MAJESTY’s most gracious ANSWER,” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 10, 1770. 78 “A PROTEST.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, August 21, 1770. 79 Ibid., April 17, 1770. 80 Petton Randolph, Speaker. “LONDON.” Newport Mercury, February 25, 1771. 81 A Looker On. Connecticut Courant, October 2, 1770; An ENGLISHMAN, The Connecticut Courant, December 18, 1770. 82 JUNIUS, Connecticut Courant, July 21, 1772. 83 Connecticut Courant, October 23, 1770. 84 Ibid., October 16, 1770. 85 Newport Mercury, August 12, 1771; Ibid., July 28, 1772. 86 Connecticut Courant, December 18, 1770. 87 Morris, Robert. Connecticut Courant, December 25, 1770. 88 A.B., Connecticut Courant, June 23, 1772. See Job 34:18 and Exodus 22:28. Magistratuum, Amicus Bonorum. Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1772. 89 Newport Mercury, February 25, 1771; Ibid., March 6, 1771. 90 See Ibid., February 25, 1771. 91 Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, January 11, 1773; Rhode Island (Colony) Session Laws, 1773. January 1773. At the General Assembly. Newport, [1773]. pp. 89-94 AAS copy;

173

ADDITION to the SOUTH CAROLINA GAZETEE, and COUNTRY JOURNAL, April 28, 1772; See South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, October 26, 1773. See also N.Y. Journal, January 21, 1773. Edes and Gill continued to promote the idea of an independent America, despite the fact that most Colonists were not ready to make such a bold step. “Truth and common sense will at last prevail and if the Britons continue their endeavours much longer to subject us to their government and taxation, we shall become a separate state—This is as certain as any event that has not already come to pass…in a short time the Americans will be too strong for any nation in the world.” 92 James Hawkes. A retrospect of the Boston tea-party: with a memoir of George R. T. Hewes. S. S. Bliss, printer. 1834. Original from the New York Public Library. Digitized July 18, 2007 by Google. 93 South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 28, 1774. 94 VULCAN. “Mr. Southwick,” Newport Mercury, January 24, 1774. 95 Ibid., ; MANY. “The respectful compliments of LEGION.” Newport Mercury, January 24, 1774. 96 Newport, R.I. Town Meeting, 1774. Colony of Rhode-Island, &c. At a Town Meeting…the 12th day of Jan., 1774…[Newport, 1774.] Broadside. NYPL copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 13498. 97 See Newport Mercury, January 31, 1774; B.C. “To the Publisher of the London Chronicle.” Newport Mercury, January 31, 1774; “To the INHABITANTS of NEW- YORK.” Newport Mercury, January 31, 1774. Southwick strongly supported the American cause, but still loathed being told what he could and could not print. One article published in January 1774 accused such patriot leaders as Samuel Adams and John Hancock of “inflaming all the towns in the Province against the King’s Government.” This does not mean, however, that Southwick had lost his faith in the measures taken by the American Colonies to defy the unconstitutional rights of the Americans. On the contrary, he continued to fight harder than ever. He insisted that the Colonists carry the non-importation agreement through to the end. “Be not alarmed with the threats of creatures inured to blood, and enriched with the spoils of their fellow subjects. Be firm— Be as one man—And villainy shall tremble to its centre in every part of America,” he wrote. 98 Charles Crouch. South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, January 11, 1774; Ibid., January 18, 1774; Ibid., 1774. 99 SUPPLEMENT to the South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 26, 1774; Milligan, Jacob. The Charleston Directory….Sept., 1794. Charleston, Young, 1794. [2], 50 pp. NYHS copy. 40. 100 Charles Crouch. South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 3, 1774; Ibid., May 17, 1774. 101 “LONDON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, April 26, 1774; Ibid., May 24, 1774; “Extract of a letter from London, Feb. 17,” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 17, 1774. See also “CHARLESTOWN, Feb. 1.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, February 1, 1774. 102 “LONDON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 24, 1774. 103 “BOSTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 7, 1774; South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 7, 1774.

174

104 “FARMINGTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 28, 1774; “CHARLESTOWN.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 7, 1774. 105 JABEZ BOWEN, Esq; Moderator. “PROVIDENCE. At a town meeting of the town of Providence…” Newport Mercury, February 21, 1774. 106 JABEZ BOWEN, Esq; Moderator. “PROVIDENCE. At a town meeting of the town of Providence…” Newport Mercury, February 21, 1774; A TRUE FRIEND TO LIBERTY. “To the true SONS OF LIBERTY.” Newport Mercury, February 21, 1774. 107 Ibid. 108 “TO THE INHABITANTS of SOUTH CRAOLINA [sic].” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, September 6, 1774. 109 “From the MARYLAND GAZETTE. The following is the PETITION of the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.” Newport Mercury, January 30, 1775. 110 Extracts from the Votes and Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, held…the 5th of Sept., 1774. Containing the Bill of Rights….Newport, 1774. 59 pp. AAS copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 13722; Rhode Island (Colony) Session Laws, 1774. Dec., 1774. At the General Assembly. Newport, [1774]. P. 125-157. AAS Copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 13571. 111 “The ASSOCIATION, &c.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, November 15, 1774; “Extracts from the Votes and Proceedings of the AMERICAN CONTINENTAL CONGRESS…” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, November 15, 1774. 112 Newport Mercury, January 30, 1775. 113 South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, June 7, 1774; “CHARLESTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, February 7, 1775. 114 AN OLD SOLDIER. “Mr. Southwick.” Newport Mercury, January 30, 1775; “CHARLESTON.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, February 7, 1775; Newport Mercury, January 30, 1775; “NEWPORT.” Newport Mercury, February 13, 1775; “NEWPORT.” Newport Mercury, February 20, 1775. 115 “Ibid., February 13, 1775. 116 “BOSTON.” Newport Mercury, January 30, 1776; Solomon Southwick. “To Colonel THOMAS GILBERT…” Newport Mercury, March 6, 1775. 117 Thomas, The History of Printing, 82, footnote 1. 118 The WHIGS. Connecticut Courant, September 4, 1775. 119 Spaulding, E. Wilder, “The Connecticut Courant, a Representative Newspaper in the Eighteenth Century,” The New England Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1930). 451-452. When the British troops invaded New York, many of the large newspapers of the day were discontinued as the printers fled to other parts of the country. Eager for news of the war and the world, residents of New York and surrounding area turned to the Connecticut Courant. Its circulation boomed. For a time, its readership was as large or larger as any newspaper’s on the continent. See Thomas, The History of Printing 1:35; Thomas, The History of Printing 2:89; Ibid., 90. 120 Mentor. “To the KING.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 16, 1775. 121 See South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 9, 1775; May 16, 1775.

175

122 “PROVIDENCE.” Crouch’s South Carolina Gazette Extraordinary. May 19, 1775; “A DECLARATION by the REPRESENTATIVE of the United Colonies of North- America, not met in General Congress…” Crouch’s South Carolina Gazette Extraordinary, July 22, 1775; “CHARLESTOWN, May 16.” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 16, 1775; “PROVIDENCE.” Crouch’s South Carolina Gazette Extraordinary. May 19, 1775. 123 Thomas, I:571. In the months after the war began, Crouch’s financial problems and health concerns had become worse. In an effort to pay his ever-increasing medical and business bills, he rented out his house and kept only his printing office. He tried to continue his printing faithfully and with all patriotic fervor, (“[I know] the virtuous Reason which it [the Country Journal] was founded,” and pledge to never “debauch or injure it,”) but even his best efforts could not cure the printer’s illness. Crouch had purchased passage on a ship to New York, presumably for his health, when he fell overboard and was drowned. See Charles Crouch. South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, July 25, 1775; The Public’s faithful servant [Charles Crouch.] “To the Readers of Mr. Crouch’s Gazette. The Editor,…” South Carolina Gazette; and Country Journal, May 16, 1775. 124 Sloan, The Media in America, 57-59.

Chapter 4

1 Carl P. Borick. A Gallant Defense: The Siege of Charleston, 1780. (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2003) 54, 65, 77, 92, 103, 106. 2 Borick. A Gallant Defense, 54, 65, 77, 92, 103, 106. 3 George Smith McCowen, Jr. The British Occupation of Charleston, 1780-82 (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1972),151; Thomas, History of Printing, 2:569; South Carolina Gazette, February 2, 1734; Jeffrey A. Smith, “Impartiality and Revolutionary Ideology: Editorial Policies of the South-Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775,” Journal of Southern History 49, no. 4 (1983); Bull to Lord Dartmouth, March 10, 1774, and to Board of Trade, Nov. 3, 1765, Transcripts of Records in the British Public Record Office Relating to South Carolina, 34:18, and 30:281-82, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, as cited in Bernard Bailyn and John B. Hench, ed., The Press & the American Revolution (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1980) 106; Peter Timothy to Samuel Adams, June 9, 1774, Boston Committee of Correspondence Papers (N.Y. Public library), II, 527 as cited in Schlesinger. Prelude to Independence, 187. 4 Ibid., 126; Smith, “Impartiality and Revolutionary Ideology;” See also Robert M. Weir, “The Role of the Newspaper Press in the Southern Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution: An Interpretation,” in Bailyn, The Press & American Revolution, 105; Thomas, The History of Printing, 568. Timothy had printed a letter written by Hugh Bryan that claimed “the clergy of South Carolina broke their canons daily.” Timothy and Bryan were both arrested, but later set free on bail. 5 South Carolina Gazette, July 20, 1765. 6 Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, September 3, 1768, Franklin Papers, vol. 19 in the Franklin Papers Digital Database http://franklinpapers.org [accessed July 24, 2008].

176

7 Ibid.; Francis Bernard, “To the General Assembly of Massachusetts Bay,” South Carolina Gazette, October 31, 1765. 8 Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, September 3, 1768. 9 Ibid.; Thomas, History of Printing 1:571; Thomas, History of Printing 1:571; Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, Sept. 3, 1768, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 15:200-201; Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, Sept. 3, 1768, Franklin Papers, vol. 19 in the Franklin Papers Digital Database http://franklinpapers.org [accessed July 24, 2008]. 10 Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, Sept. 3, 1768, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 15:200-201; South Carolina Gazette, June 2, 1766. 11 Ibid., May 21, 1772. 12 William Goddard. The Partnership: or the History of the Rise and Progress of the Pennsylvania Chronicle (Philadelphia: William Goddard, 1770) 6. 13 Goddard. The Partnership, 6. 14 Ward L. Miner. William Goddard, Newspaperman (Durham: Duke University Press 1962) 65. 15 Ibid., , 65-69; Pennsylvania Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser, April 17, 1767. 16 Ward L. William. Goddard, Newspaperman (Durham: Duke University Press 1962) 83; Goddard. The Partnership, 17. 17 Ibid., 12. 18 Ibid., 14. 19 Ibid., 15. 20 Ibid., 16. 21 Ibid., 16. 22 Pennsylvania Chronicle, July 16, 1770. 23 Goddard. The Partnership, 18. 24 Pennsylvania Chronicle, February 1, 1768. 25 Hennif Cohen, The South Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775 (Columbia, S.C., 1953), 4, as cited in Bailyn, The Press & the American Revolution, 107; South Carolina Gazette, May 21, 1772. 26 Pennsylvania Chronicle, March 12, 1770; Ibid., March 19, 1770. 27 South Carolina Gazette, April 5, 1770. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Pennsylvania Chronicle, September 17, 1770; Ibid., November 19, 1770. 31 Ibid., July 16, 1770; Ibid., August 3, 1770; William, Goddard, Newspaperman, 85; Pennsylvania Chronicle, December 17, 1770. 32 Peter Timothy to Benjamin Franklin, August 24, 1772, Franklin Papers, vol. 19 in the Franklin Papers Digital Database http://franklinpapers.org [accessed July 24, 2008]. 33 Junius, South Carolina Gazette, April 24, 1770; Ibid., September 10, 1772. 34 South Carolina Gazette, November 1, 1773. 35 Cohen, The South Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775, 107; Timothy to Adams, June 9, 1774, Boston Committee of Correspondence Papers (N.Y. Public library), II, 527 as cited in Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 187. See also Timothy’s letter to Benjamin Franklin, June 12, 1777; South Carolina Gazette, April 10, 1775.

177

36 Ibid., May 29, 1775; Caroliniensis. South Carolina Gazette, May 29, 1775. Theophrastus Americanus. South Carolina Gazette, May 29, 1775; 37 Caroliniensis. South Carolina Gazette, May 29, 1775. In the end, Timothy did suffer death for his country. He was taken as a prisoner of war with a group of leading Patriots when the British reached Charleston in 1780, and in 1782 was drowned in a shipwreck following a prisoner exchange.

Chapter 5

1 Thomas, The History of Printing, 1:478-480; Ibid., 474. 2 Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 2; Thomas, The History of Printing, 1:472; Ibid., 1:473. Gaine died on April 25, 1807 at the age of 81. 3 Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 16. 4 New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, January 27, 1766. 5 Davidson, Propaganda, 170; New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, January 27, 1766; Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 41. After such violent persuasion, Schaak sent the Sons of Liberty an affidavit that he would not buy stamps. 6 Ibid., 37. 7 John Holt. New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, March 12, 1767. 8 Ibid., May 29, 1767. 9 Ibid., March 12, 1767; New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, March 19, 1767. 10 John Holt. New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, May 29, 1767. 11 “TO THE PRINTER.” New-York Journal, or, General Advertiser, March 19, 1767. 12 New-York Journal, or, General Advertiser, April 2, 1767; Ibid., March 19, 1767; SUPPLEMENT EXTRAORDINARY TO THE New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, March 26, 1767. 13 “RIGHT, WRONG, and REASONABLE, with regard to America…” SUPPLEMENT to the New-Your Journal; or General Advertiser, July 23, 1767. 14 SUPPLEMENT to the New-Your Journal; or General Advertiser, July 23, 1767. 15 An Impartial…SUPPLEMENT to the New-Your Journal; or General Advertiser, March 1, 1770. 16 An Account of the late Military Massacre… March 12, 1770. [New York, 1770.] [2] pp. BPL copy. 17 The New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, March 15, 1770. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Isaac Woodruff. “SUPPLEMENT to the NEW-YORK JOURNAL, Or GENERAL ADVERTISER,” MARCH 15, 1770. 21 “FOUR. The WANDSWORTH GENEALOGICAL HISTORY of a TORY.” New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, April 19, 1770; The NEW YORK SATYRIST. “The NEW_YORK SATYRIST, continued,” New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, April 19, 1770. 22 An advertisement for Rivington’s wares appears first in James Parker’s New York Gazette, and Weekly Post Boy, October 2, 1760. 23 James Rivington. New York Gazetteer, April 22, 1773.

178

24 A.L.S. Igou and Booth to James and Drinker, November 19, 1773, Henry S. Drinker Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, as quoted in Hewlett, James Rivington. 25 Cassius. New York Gazetteer, November 11, 1773. Poplicola, November 12, 1773. Poplicola was later identified as John Cardill. Cardill, an Anglican clergyman, wrote three well-thought out articles arguing the legality of the Tea Act and pleading for those who were opposed to the act to refrain from violence. 26 T.T. Rivington’s Gazette, October 6, 1773. The author may have been Charles Lee. 27 A Farmer. “Letter I. To the Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New-York.” November 22, 1773. [New York, 1773.] Broadside; Legion. New York Gazetteer, November 11, 1773. 28 New York Gazetteer, December 23, 1773; A Student of the Law. New York Gazetteer, December 23, 1773. 29 “LONDON.” New-York Journal, or, the General Advertiser, April 15, 1773; New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 5, 1774. 30 “Extract of a letter from a Gentleman in London to his friend in New-York…” New- York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, April 21, 1774. 31 A King’s Friend. “From the Public Ledger, to the Printer,” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 5, 1774. 32 New York Gazetteer, December 23, 1773. 33 Brutus. “To the Printer of the NEW-YORK GAZETTEER,” New York Gazetter, May 12, 1774. 34 Rivington to Henry Knox, June 26, 1774, Henry Knox microfilm, Massachusetts Historical Society, p-17, reel #1. 35 New York Gazetteer, December 2, 1773; A Second Continuation of the Liberty Song. New York Gazetteer, December 23, 1773. 36 Compare New York Gazetteer, April 23, 1773 with New York Gazetteer, December 23, 1773. 37 JUNIUS. “From the MIDDLESEX JOURNAL of March 20..” New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, May 24, 1770. 38 New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, April 28, 1774. 39 JUNIUS. “From the MIDDLESEX JOURNAL of March 20..” New-York Journal, or General Advertiser, May 24, 1770. 40 “A PLAN to perpetuate the UNION Between GREAT BRITAIN and AMERICA…” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, April 8, 1773. 41 James Rivington. New York Gazetteer, January 3, 1774. 42 Hewlett, James Rivington, 46. 43 See [Philip Livingston]. “The Other Side of the Question,” New York, Rivington, 1774. 29, [2] pp. AAS copy; [Benjamin Franklin]. “The Causes of the Present Distractions in America. [New York], 1774. [2], 16 pp. AAS copy. For authorship, see Bib. Soc. Am., Papers, XXVIII, 14-15; James Rivington. New York Gazetteer, February 24, 1774. The statement appeared after two inane poems attacking Poplicola appeared, written by “Philo-Patriae” and “Rum-Duke.” 44 John Penn. New York Gazetteer, February 3, 1774; The Old Prophet. New York Gazetteer, February 3, 1774. 45 New York Gazetteer, April 28, 1774; Ibid., March 31, 1774.

179

46 A YOUNGER BROTHER. “TO ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES of North- America.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774; “To the AMERICAN BRITONS. Numb. I.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774; A YOUNGER BROTHER. “TO ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES of North- America.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774. 47 “LETTER II. To the IHABITANTS of the BRITISH COLONIES in AMERICA.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774. 48 New York Gazetteer, June 22, 1774. 49 Hewlett, James Rivington, 54. 50 Rivington to Henry Knox, April 20, 1774, Knox Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, I. 111. 51 51 New York Gazetteer, April 28, 1774. 52 Ibid. 53 James Rivington. New York Gazetteer, May 12, 1774. 54 “American Affairs,” New York Gazetteer, May 12, 1774; Brutus. “To the Printer of the NEW-YORK GAZETTEER,” New York Gazetteer, May 12, 1774; 55 See New York Gazetteer, June 2, 1774. 56 Rivington to Henry Knox, June 20, 1774, Henry Knox microfilm, Massachusetts Historical Society, p-17, reel #1. 57 Davidson, Propaganda, 29-30; Isaac Sears. “To Mr. James Rivington” New-York Journal, September 1, 1774; James Rivington. “To Mr. ISAAC SEARS” New-York Journal, September 1, 1774. 58 “On the Snake, depicted at the Head of some American News Papers,” New York Gazetteer, August 25, 1774. 59 New York Gazetteer, August 11, 1774; A.L.S. Pigou & Booth to James & Drinker, August 8, 1774, Henry S. Drinker Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, as noted in Hewlett, 56; A.L.S., Silas Deane to Mrs. Elizabeth Deane, September 8, 1774, quoted in Deane Papers (Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1886-1890” Publication Fund [Derioes], Colx. XIX-XXIII; 5 vols.; New York: New York Historical Society, 1887-1891), I (i.e., XIX), as quoted in Hewlett, 16. 60 New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 5, 1774. 61 “INTERESTING INTELLIGENCE,” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 12, 1774. 62 New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 12, 1774; “Extract from a letter from Poole, dated March 28.” New York Gazetter, May 12, 1774; “INTERESTING INTELLIGENCE,” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, May 12, 1774. 63 “Extract of a letter from a Gentleman in England, to his friend in this city.” SUPPLEMENT to the New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 9, 1774; A YOUNGER BROTHER. “TO ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES of North-America.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774. 64 See New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774; Ibid., June 16, 1774; Ibid., June 9, 1774. 65 Footnote to “From Mr. Gaine’s NEW YORK GAZETTE, of May 16, 1774….” SUPPLEMENT to the New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 9, 1774.

180

66 It is no surprise that Rivington did not set much stock in the Non-Importation Agreement. In late summer 1774, Rivington broke all the rules by writing a friend about a shipment of tea he hoped he could sell, despite the ban on all imported goods from England and the particularly bad feelings towards tea. See Rivington to Henry Knox, August 15, 1774, Henry Knox microfilm, Massachusetts Historical Society, I-142, reel #1. 67 COSMOPOLITANUS. “To the AMERICAN BRITONS. Numb. I.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 16, 1774. 68 “Extract of a letter from London.” SUPPLEMENT to the New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 9, 1774. 69 “Extract of a letter from London, March 29.” New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 30, 1774; New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 30, 1774. 70 New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 30, 1774. 71 See New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 9, 1774; Ibid., June 16, 1774; Ibid., June 23, 1774. 72 New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 23, 1774; “To the PRINTER.” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, June 23, 1774; See SUPPLEMENT to the New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, June 23, 1774. 73 “For the NEW YORK GAZETTEER. On the SNAKE,…” Rivington’s New York Gazetteer, August 25, 1774. 74 SPECULATOR. “TO THE PRINTER.” New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, September 1, 1774. 75 John Holt. “THE PRINTER to the PUBLIC.” New-York Journal; or General Advertiser, September 1, 1774. 76 Ibid. 77 New York Gazetteer, September 29, 1774. 78 “WEDNESDAY’S POST.” New York Gazetteer, October 20, 1774; “LONDON, August 20.” New York Gazetteer, October 20, 1774. 79 T.W. “To the principal GENTLEMEN and MERCHANTS of NEW-YORK.” New York Gazetteer, September 29, 1774. 80 Benjamin Booth to Abel James, October 22, 1774, Henry S. Drinker Papers, Historical Society of Pensylvania, as cited in Hewlett, James Rivington, 62. 81 A LOVER OF PEACE. “To the PRINTER,” New York Gazetteer, October 27, 1774. 82 Benjamin Lincoln, secretary. “SATURDAY’s POST. BOSTON, October 10.” New York Gazetteer, October 27, 1774; “Extract of a Letter from London, dated Sept. 4,” New York Gazetteer, October 27, 1774. 83 New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, September 8, 1774; Ibid., November 24, 1774; Ibid., September 8, 1774; “In Congress, October 10.” New York Gazetteer, October 27, 1774. 84 “An ELEGY on the TIMES.” New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, November 24, 1774; New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, November 24, 1774. 85 [Chandler, Thomas Bradbury], “A Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans. New York, 1774. 55, [1] pp. AAS copy. 86 Rivington to Henry Knox, November 5, 1774, Henry Knox microfilm, Massachusetts Historical Society, I-142, reel #1.

181

87 [Livingston, Phillip.] The Other Side of the Question. New York, Rivington, 1774, 29, [2] pp. AAS Copy; New York Gazetteer, November 17, 1774. 88 New York Gazetteer, November 17, 1774. 89 Thomas C. Williams. “To the PUBLIC,” New York Gazetteer, November 10, 1774. 90 New York Journal, March 2, 1774. 91 “Coriolanus” [John Cardill], “The Case of Mr. James Rivington, Printer at New York.” Gentleman’s Magazine, XLVI (November 1776) 509-11, as quoted in Hewlett, James Rivington, 92. The mob celebrated Rivington’s “hanging” with the following poem, read just before the printer’s mock death. It claimed he had confessed his many crimes against American freedom: Freneau, Philip Morin. The Last Words, Dying Speech, and Confession of J__s R—g—n…on the Thirteenth day of April, 1775. [New York, 1775.] Broadside. NYPL Copy. The final period of my life is come, I in the morn shall here receive a doom, Which injured justice doth of right demand, For lies I’ve framed against this happy land, Oft times the Devil of my Press has said, That when my body in the dust was laid, My soul itself in torment would appear, As black as he who acted Devil there, What now avails the pension that was given, T’will never purchase me a seat in heaven, My crimes, at length will fill each future page, My name will be the curse of every age, Those very prints they strove in vain to check, Have held me out as hanging by the neck, A constant terror to beholding eyes, A wretch who suffered for inventing lies, The more I think the more I stand, appal’d At the dread guilt in which my soul’s enthrall’d My neighbours wrongs now stare me in the face, And bring to view the terrors of that place, Where conscience tells me I am doom’d to dwell, With Pluto the prime minister of Hell. That tree on which my body hang’d will be, Which they once call’d by name of Liberty. A growing monument will there remain, Of my past, present, and my future shame. Ten thousand devils, now infest my sight, And soon will hurl me in eternal night, My tortur’d soul now harrow’d up with guilt, Reminds me of the blood I would have spilt, Virtue and truth, those foes profess’d of Hell. Record with how much infamy I fell, Bewar ye foes to liberty’s just cause,

182

How ye betray your king and country’s laws, By my just fate, Oh Tories learn to shun, The fatal rock you see, I split upon, Tho’ Hell itself, ne’er cherish’d a worse man, When I am dead say all the good you can, Behold grim Pluto from the infernal plains, See how he drags with him my many chains, Sulphurous clouds attend him through the air, And from my inmost soul I quake for fear, My reverend friends! O Cooper! Where art thou! No Seabury, Chandler, to assist me now! Come forth Oh Charlton! Wilkins lend thy aid, To sooth those sorrows, which my soul invade, In vain your aid, your friendship, I implore, Old Satan has me now, for ever more. Rivington bitingly reported the effigy hanging in the Gazetteer: “Last Thursday was hung up by some of the lower class of inhabitants… an effigy, representing the person of Mr. Rivington, the printer at New-York, merely for acting consistent with his profession as a free printer.” He also included an engraving depicting himself hung from a tree in gentlemen’s attire, that “these little, shabby, piddling politicians may know how much their vengeance is regarded.” See James Rivington. Rivington’s Gazetteer, April 20, 1775. 92 New-York Journal, or, General Advertiser, February 23, 1775; Ibid., February 27, 1775; Huntington, Smith Town, Islip, South Haven, and Brook Haven New York all banned the Gazetteer, as did Newport Rhode Island. See New York Gazetteer, March 1, 1775; New York Gazetteer, March 16 1775; Christopher Marshall, Extracts from the Diary of Christopher Marshall Kept in Philadelphia and Lancaster during the American Revolution, 1774-181, ed. William Duane (Albany, New York: J. Munsell, 1877), p. 13, as cited in Hewlett, 69; (W. & T. Bradford’s) Pennsylvania Journal; and the Weekly Advertiser, February 8, 1775, p. 4, as cited in Hewlett, James Rivington, 69. 93 New York Gazetteer, February 16, 1775; James Rivington. “TO THE PUBLIC,” New York Gazetteer, April 20, 1775. 94 James Rivington. New York Gazetteer, April 20, 1775. 95 “Extract of a letter from Williamsburg, in Virginia…” New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, December 8, 1774. 96 Thomas, History of Printing, 2:117; See New-York Journal; or, the General Advertiser, December 15, 1774. 97 “To Neighbour HOLT, On his EMBLEMATICAL TWISTIFICATION.” New York Gazetteer, January 19, 1775. 98 See [Leonard, Daniel]. The Origin of the American Contest with Great-Britain. New York, Rivington, 1775. [2], 86 pp. LOC Copy; [Lind, John?] An Englishman’s Answer, to the Address, from the Delegates. New York, Rivington, 1775. 26 pp. AAS Copy; The Patriots of North-America. New York, 1775. I-iv, 47, [1] p. NYPL copy; [Gray, Harrison], The Two Congresses cut up. New York, Rivington, [1775]. 14 pp. NYPL copy; [Sewall, Jonathan], The Americans Roused, in a Cure for the Spleen. New York,

183

Rivington, [1775]. 32 pp. AAS copy; [Galloway, Joseph], A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims. New York, Rivington, 1775. [2], 62 pp. AAS copy; Lee, Arthur. An Appeal to the Justic and Interests of the People of Great-Britain…Fourth Edition. New York, Rivington, 1775. 32 pp. NYHS copy. The letters of the two Commanders in Chief; Generals Gage and Washington. New York, Rivington, 1775. 8 pp. AAS copy; [Barry, Henry], The General, Attacked by a Subaltern. New York, Rivington, [1775]. 25 pp. NYPL copy; The Triumph of the Whigs; or, T’other Congress Convened. New York, Rivington, 1775, 8 pp. NYHS copy; [Seabury, Samuel]. An alarm to the Ligislature [sic] of the Province of New-York. New York, Rivington, 1775. 13, [2] pp. AAS copy; The Triumph of the Whigs; or, T’other Congress Convened. New York, Rivington, 1775, 8. NYHS copy. 99 Colden to Gage, May 31, 1775, The Colden Letter Books, 1760-1775, New York historical Society Collections, vols. 9, 10 (New York: New York Historical Society, 1877-78), 10:414, as published in Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 94-95. 100 See The New-York Directory…for…1789. New York, Hodge, Allen & Campbell, 1789. 144 pp., 1 map. AAS copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 22021. Both printer’s shops were near the docks on the East River, two blocks northeast of the tip of the city. 101 New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, May 1, 1775. 102 John Warner Barber. Historical collections of the state of New York: containing a general collection of the most interesting facts, traditions, biographical… New York, 1841. 301. Available through Sabin Americana online archive, accessed July 29, 2008; Thomas, History of Printing, 2:121. 103 Ibid., 2:120-124. The patriots happily continued their own fight against Rivington, as well. Patriot printers lampooned him, Whig leaders banned him, and the Sons of Liberty did everything in their power to stop him. Rivington’s witty writings and well-published newspaper were not viewed as a mere annoyance to these powerful groups. He and all his works were a threat. Whig leaders feared Rivington’s influence might sway the populace away from their cause, and the champions of American liberty treated him accordingly. See Appendix A. 104 Remsen, Henry, New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, May 22, 1775. “This city and County, as well as the Rest of the Colony have exercised the greatest Patience in waiting, tho’ in vain, for a Redress of the many unconstitutional and oppressive Burdens, under which this whole Continent has groaned for several Years past. To their inexpressible Grief, they have found that the most dutiful Applications for Redress have not only been rejected but have been answered by repeated Violations of their Rights.”; New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, August 9, 1776; Ibid., May 1, 1776; Ibid., July 5, 1776. 105 Ibid., July 15, 1776. 106 The one exception to this was the skill of the American riflemen. James Thacher, a Colonial soldier, recorded in his journal tales of their lethal aim: “Their shot have frequently proved fatal to British officers and soldiers who expose themselves to view, even at more than double the distance of common musket-shot. See James Thacher, Military Journal During the American Revolutionary War (Hartford, 1854), p. 31.

184

107 See The New-York Directory…for…1789. New York, Hodge, Allen & Campbell, 1789. 144 pp., 1 map. AAS copy. Also available through Evans American Imprints, Series 1, no. 22021; New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, September 2, 1776; Ibid., August 19, 1776. Gaine’s shop had a full view of the harbor. 108 Ibid., September 21, 1776. 109 Ibid., September –November, 1776. 110 Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 115. 111 Ibid., 117. 112 Ibid., 109-115; New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, September 30, 1776. 113 Lorenz, Hugh Gaine, 119; New York Gazette, and the Weekly Mercury, November 11, 1776; Ibid., November 25, 1776; Ibid., November 11, 1776. 114 Pennsylvania Journal, February 19, 1777; Pennsylvania Packet, or the General Advertiser, February 18, 1777. 115 Thomas, History of Printing, 2:269; Thomas Paine. The Complete Political Works of Thomas Paine, vol. ii (New York: The Freethought Press Association, 1954), 96.

Chapter 6

1 See Blevens, “Publishers,” 99; Botein, “Printers and the American Revolution,” 11; David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1789) II:319 as cited in Arthur Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, vii. 2 Sloan, ed. The Media in America, 57-59.

Appendix A

1 “Epigram Occasioned by the title of Rivington’s Royal Gazette Being Scarcely Legible,” (Bailey’s) Philadelphia, Freeman’s Journal, or the North American Intelligencer, February 13, 1782, p. 3, as seen quoted in Hewlett, James Rivington, 116- 177. 2 “Lines Occassioned By Mr. Rivington’s New Titular Types to his Royal Gazette, of Feb. 27,” Freeman’s Journal, March 13, 1782, p. 3 as quoted in Hewlett, James Rivington. 3 “Truth Anticipated: A Rivingtonian Dialogue” as quoted in Hewlett, James Rivington, 143-146.

185